Skip to main content

Full text of "A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews"

See other formats

International Critical Commentary 

on tin Dob jkriptutts of tbc (£Uo anb 
|Uto (Lcstammts. 



Sometime Master of University College, Durham 

Planned and for Years Edited by 

The Late Rev. Professor SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt. 


The Late Rev. Professor CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt. 

The International Critical Commentary 






D.D., D.Litt., Hon. M.A. (Oxoo.) 

Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street 






First Edition . . . 1924 
Latest Reprint . . 1963 

The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved 









It is ten years since this edition was first drafted. 
Various interruptions, of war and peace, have prevented 
me from finishing it till now, and I am bound to acknow- 
ledge the courtesy and patience of the editor and the 
publishers. During the ten years a number of valuable 
contributions to the subject have appeared. Of these as 
well as of their predecessors I have endeavoured to take 
account ; if I have not referred to them often, this has 
been due to no lack of appreciation, but simply because, 
in order to be concise and readable, I have found it 
necessary to abstain from offering any catena of opinions 
in this edition. The one justification for issuing another 
edition of IJ/ao? 'Efipaiowi seemed to me to lie in a fresh 
point of view, expounded in the notes — fresh, that is, in 
an English edition. I am more convinced than ever 
that the criticism of this writing cannot hope to make 
any positive advance except from two negative con- 
clusions. One is, that the identity of the author and of 
his readers must be left in the mist where they already 
lay at the beginning of the second century when the 
guess-work, which is honoured as " tradition," began. The 
other is, that the situation which called forth this remark- 
able piece of primitive Christian thought had nothing to do 
with any movement in contemporary Judaism. The writer 
of 17/30? 'EfipaLovs knew no Hebrew, and his readers were 
in no sense 'Efipaioi. These may sound paradoxes. I 
agree with those who think they are axioms. At any 



rate such is the point of view from which the present 
edition has been written ; it will explain why, for example, 
in the Introduction there is so comparatively small space 
devoted to the stock questions about authorship and date. 

One special reason for the delay in issuing the book 
has been the need of working through the materials 
supplied for the criticism of the text by von Soden's 
Schriften des Neuen Testaments (191 3) and by some 
subsequent discoveries, and also the need of making a 
first-hand study of the Wisdom literature of Hellenistic 
Judaism as well as of Philo. Further, I did not feel 
justified in annotating ITpo? 'Efipaiow; without reading 
through the scattered ethical and philosophical tracts 
and treatises of the general period, like the De Mundo 
and the remains of Teles and Musonius Rufus. 

"A commentary," as Dr. Johnson observed, "must arise 
from the fortuitous discoveries of many men in devious 
walks of literature." No one can leave the criticism of a 
work like JTpo? 'Efipaiovs after twelve years spent upon 
it, without feeling deeply indebted to such writers as 
Chrysostom, Calvin, Bleek, Riehm, and Riggenbach, who 
have directly handled it. But I owe much to some 
eighteenth-century writings, like L. C. Valckenaer's Scholia 
and G. D. Kypke's Observationes Sacrae, as well as to 
other scholars who have lit up special points of inter- 
pretation indirectly. Where the critical data had been 
already gathered in fairly complete form, I have tried 
to exercise an independent judgment ; also I hope some 
fresh ground has been broken here and there in ascertain- 
ing and illustrating the text of this early Christian 


Glasgow, 15M February 1924. 



Preface ....... ix 

Introduction ..... xiii-lxxvi 
§ i. Origin and Aim ..... xiii 
§ 2. Religious Ideas ..... xxx 
§ 3. Style and Diction . . . . lvi 

§ 4. Text, Commentaries, etc. . . . lxiv 

Commentary ..... 1-247 

Indexes ...... 248-264 

I. Greek . . . . . .248 

II. Subjects and Authors .... 259 

III. Quotations, etc., of the Old Testament . , 264 


§ i. Origin and Aim. 


During the last quarter of the first century a.d. a little master- 
piece of religious thought began to circulate among some of the 
Christian communities. The earliest trace of it appears towards 
the end of the century, in a pastoral letter sent by the church 
of Rome to the church of Corinth. The authorship of this 
letter is traditionally assigned to a certain Clement, who 
probably composed it about the last decade of the century. 
Evidently he knew IIpos c E/3pcuovs (as we may, for the sake of 
convenience, call our writing) ; there are several almost verbal 
reminiscences (cp. Dr. A. J. Carlyle in The New Testament in the 
Apostolic Fathers, pp. 44 f., where the evidence is sifted). This 
is beyond dispute, and proves that our writing was known at 
Rome during the last quarter of the first century. A fair speci- 
men of the indebtedness of Clement to our epistle may be seen 
in a passage like the following, where I have underlined the 
allusions : 

36 2 " 5 os wv a7ravyao-/u.a rrj<; ucyttAojcrw^s avrov, toctovtw u«'£a)v 
iarlv dyyeAcov, ocrw StacpopojTepoj/ ovo/jlo. KexXrjpovo- 
pnqxev' y€ypa7rrai yap outws" 

6 7roitov tous dyyeAovs avrov irvcv/xaTa 
/cat tovs AeiToupyovs airov 7rupc>9 <f>Xoya. 

t7ri Se t<S vlw avrov outojs €i7rev 6 oecnroTrj^' 

vlos fxov et crv, 

eya> 0-rjp.epov ytyevvrjKa. o~e' 

alrr}o~ai Trap* ip.ov, /ecu Scocrto croi \0vt] ttjv KXrjpovo/xiav 

o~ov /ecu rrjv Kardo"^€o-iV crov ra nepara 717s y^S. 
/ecu irdXiv Ae'yci 7rpos airov' 


Kadov €K Se^tcov p.ov, 

ecos av 6u) tovs i^dpovs aov viroirohiov twv ttoSCjv <rov. 

Tives ovv oi i)(9poi ; ol <pav\oi kcll dyTiTacrao/xevot t<3 
deX-q/xaTL avrov. 

To this we may add a sentence from what precedes : 

36 1 'Jr/crovv Xpurrbv rbv dpx^pia 2 18 bivarai rots ireipafofiivois /3or)- 
tQiv Trpo<T<popuiv Vfiuiv, rbv TrpoaT&TTjv dijffai. . . . 3 1 KaTavo-Zjcrare rbv 
kclI fHorjdbv rr)s airdevelas t)/j,Qv. &tt6<ttoXov nal dp^iep^a ttjs dpoXoylas 

r)/j.u>v 'Irjaovv. 

The same phrase occurs twice in later doxologies, 8id tov 
apxupewi kclI irpoo-TOLTOv (tcuv \f/v)(C>v r)p.G)V, 6 1 8 ) (r)p\u)v, 64 1 ) 'Irja-ov 
Xpia-Tov. There is no convincing proof that Ignatius or 
Polykarp used IIpos 'E/fycuous, but the so-called Epistle of 
Barnabas contains some traces of it (e.g. in 4 9f - 5 5, 6 and 6 17 " 19 ). 
Barnabas is a second-rate interpretation of the OT ceremonial 
system, partly on allegorical lines, to warn Christians against 
having anything to do with Judaism ; its motto might be taken 
from 3 6 Ivd p.7) Trpo<rpr)<r<T<j>p.e6a. ws TrpoarjXvrot (v. I. iTnjXvrot) tw 
(Ktivoiv vo/xo). In the homily called 2 Clement our writing is 
freely employed, e.g. in 

II 8 SxrTt, &8eX<poi fiov, fid) 8i\J/vx&- IO 28 Karix^^f t^\v bfioXoylav ttjs 

/i*p, d\\d iXirlffavres virop.elvu/j.ei', iVa £Xwl8os &K\ii>rj, irnrrbs yap 6 iirayyei- 

itai rbv fiicdbu KO/j.tawfieda. iriarbs yap Xafxevos. 
iffTiv b irrayyeiKd/nevos ras avrifiiffdlas 
iiroSibbvat ixdiXTtf) tpywv afrrou. 

I 8 airodtixevot. £k€ivo & irepiKetfieda 12 1 roaovrov tx ovT( * irepiKelfitvov 

vi(pos rr) avrov OeXrjcrei. t))juv v£(f>os fMaprijpwv, 6yxov air odifxevoi 


16 4 irpoaevxi) Si £k tcaXijs awei- 13 18 irpocrevxecrOe irepl r)p.Qv ireidb- 

Srjacus. /xtOa yap Sri KaXrjv <rvvelbr)<nv tx o P €v - 

" It seems difficult, in view of the verbal coincidences, to 
resist the conclusion that the language of 2 Clement is un- 
consciously influenced by that of Hebrews" (Dr. A. J. Carlyle 
in The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, p. 126). As 
2 Clement is, in all likelihood, a product either of the Roman 
or of the Alexandrian church, where IIpos 'E/Jpaious was early 
appreciated, this becomes doubly probable. 

There is no reason why Justin Martyr, who had lived at 
Rome, should not have known it ; but the evidence for his use 
of it (see on 3 1 n 4 etc.) is barely beyond dispute. Hermas, 
however, knew it ; the Shepherd shows repeated traces of it (cf. 
Zahn's edition, pp. 439 f.). It was read in the North African 
church, as Tertullian's allusion proves (see p. xvii), and with par- 
ticular interest in the Alexandrian church, even before Clement 


wrote (cp. p. xviii). Clement's use of it is unmistakable, though 
he does not show any sympathy with its ideas about sacrifice. 1 
Naturally a thinker like Marcion ignored it, though why it shared 
with First Peter the fate of exclusion from the Muratorian canon 
is inexplicable. However, the evidence of the second century 
upon the whole is sufficient to show that it was being widely 
circulated and appreciated as an edifying religious treatise, 
canonical or not. 


By this time it had received the title of IIpos 'Efipaiovs. 
Whatever doubts there were about the authorship, the writing 
never went under any title except this in the later church ; which 
proves that, though not original, the title must be early. 
'EfipatoL 2 was intended to mean Jewish Christians. Those who 
affixed this title had no idea of its original destination ; other- 
wise they would have chosen a local term, for the writing is 
obviously intended for a special community. They were struck 
by the interest of the writing in the OT sacrifices and priests, 
however, and imagined in a superficial way that it must have 
been addressed to Jewish Christians. 'Efipaioi was still an 
archaic equivalent for 'IouScuoi ; and those who called our writing 
ETpos 'E/Jpcuovs must have imagined that it had been originally 
meant for Jewish (i.e. Hebrew-speaking) Christians in Palestine, 
or, in a broader sense, for Christians who had been born in 
Judaism. The latter is more probable. Where the title origin- 
ated we cannot say ; the corresponding description of i Peter 
as ad gentes originated in the Western church, but IIpos 'Efipaiovs 
is common both to the Western and the Eastern churches. 
The very fact that so vague and misleading a title was added, 
proves that by the second century all traces of the original 
destination of the writing had been lost. It is, like the Ad 
Familiares of Cicero's correspondence, one of the erroneous 
titles in ancient literature, " hardly more than a reflection of the 
impression produced on an early copyist " (W. Robertson Smith). 
The reason why the original destination had been lost sight of, 
was probably the fact that it was a small household church — not 
one of the great churches, but a more limited circle, which may 
have become merged in the larger local church as time went on. 
Had it been sent, for example, to any large church like that at 
Rome or Alexandria, there would have been neither the need 

1 Cp. R. B. Tollington's Clement of Alexandria, vol. ii. pp. 225 f. 

2 It is quite impossible to regard it as original, in an allegorical sense, as 
though the writer, like Philo, regarded 6 'E/Spaios as the typical believer who, 
a second Abraham, migrated or crossed from the sensuous to the spiritual 
world. The writer never alludes to Abraham in this connexion ; indeed he 
never uses 'E/Jpalos at all. 


nor the opportunity for changing the title to IIpos 'Efipaiovs. 
Our writing is not a manifesto to Jewish Christians in general, 
or to Palestinian Jewish Christians, as 7rpos 'Efipaiovs would 
imply ; indeed it is not addressed to Jewish Christians at all. 
Whoever were its original readers, they belonged to a definite, 
local group or circle. That is the first inference from the writing 
itself; the second is, that they were not specifically Jewish 
Christians. The canonical title has had an unfortunate influence 
upon the interpretation of the writing (an influence which is still 
felt in some quarters). It has been responsible for the idea, 
expressed in a variety of forms, that the writer is addressing 
Jewish Christians in Palestine or elsewhere who were tempted, 
e.g., by the war of a.d. 66-70, to fall back into Judaism ; and 
even those who cannot share this view sometimes regard the 
readers as swayed by some hereditary associations with their 
old faith, tempted by the fascinations of a ritual, outward system 
of religion, to give up the spiritual messianism of the church. 
All such interpretations are beside the point. The writer never 
mentions Jews or Christians. He views his readers without any 
distinction of this kind ; to him they are in danger of relapsing, 
but there is not a suggestion that the relapse is into Judaism, or 
that he is trying to wean them from a preoccupation with Jewish 
religion. He never refers to the temple, any more than to cir- 
cumcision. It is the tabernacle of the pentateuch which interests 
him, and all his knowledge of the Jewish ritual is gained from the 
LXX and later tradition. The LXX is for him and his readers 
the codex of their religion, the appeal to which was cogent, 
for Gentile Christians, in the early church. As Christians, his 
readers accepted the LXX as their bible. It was superfluous to 
argue for it ; he could argue from it, as Paul had done, as a 
writer like Clement of Rome did afterwards. How much the 
LXX meant to Gentile Christians, may be seen in the case of a 
man like Tatian, for example, who explicitly declares that he 
owed to reading of the OT his conversion to Christianity (Ad 
Graecos, 29). It is true that our author, in arguing that Christ 
had to suffer, does not appeal to the LXX. But this is an 
idiosyncrasy, which does not affect the vital significance of the 
LXX prophecies. The Christians to whom he was writing had 
learned to appreciate their LXX as an authority, by their mem- 
bership in the church. Their danger was not an undervaluing 
of the LXX as authoritative ; it was a moral and mental danger, 
which the writer seeks to meet by showing how great their re- 
ligion was intrinsically. This he could only do ultimately by 
assuming that they admitted the appeal to their bible, just as they 
admitted the divine Sonship of Jesus. There may have been 
Christians of Jewish birth among his readers ; but he addresses 


his circle, irrespective of their origin, as all members of the 
People of God, who accept the Book of God. The writing, in 
short, might have been called ad gentes as aptly as First Peter, 
which also describes Gentile Christians as 6 Aao's, the People 
(cp. on 2 17 ). The readers were not in doubt of their religion. 
Its basis was unquestioned. What the trouble was, in their case, 
was no theoretical doubt about the codex or the contents of 
Christianity, but a practical failure to be loyal to their principles, 
which the writer seeks to meet by recalling them to the full mean- 
ing and responsibility of their faith ; naturally he takes them 
to the common ground of the sacred LXX. 

We touch here the question of the writer's aim. But, before 
discussing this, a word must be said about the authorship. 

Had Upbs "Eppalovs been addressed to Jews, the title would have been 
intelligible. Not only was there a [avva~\yuyr) 'Epp[alwi>] at Corinth (cp. 
Deissmann's Light from the East, pp. 13, 14), but a avvayuyy] Aipptwv at Rome 
(cp. Schiirer's Geschichte des Jiid. Volkes 3 , iii. 46). Among the Jewish 
ffvvaywyal mentioned in the Roman epitaphs (cp. N. Muller's Die jiidische 
Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom . . ., Leipzig, 1912, pp. nof. ), there 
is one of 'Efiptioi, which Miiller explains as in contrast to the synagogue of 
" vernaclorum " (BepvaicXoi, fSepvaKK-qirioi), i.e. resident Jews as opposed to 
immigrants ; though it seems truer, with E. Bormann [Wiener Studien, 1912, 
pp. 3S3 f. ), to think of some Kultgemeinde which adhered to the use of 
Hebrew, or which, at any rate, was of Palestinian origin or connexion. 


The knowledge of who the author was must have disappeared 
as soon as the knowledge of what the church was, for whom he 
wrote. Who wrote ITpos 'E/Jpatovs ? We know as little of this 
as we do of the authorship of The Whole Duty of Man, that 
seventeenth-century classic of English piety. Conjectures sprang 
up, early in the second century, but by that time men were no 
wiser than we are. The mere fact that some said Barnabas, 
some Paul, proves that the writing had been circulating among 
the adespota. It was perhaps natural that our writing should 
be assigned to Barnabas, who, as a Levite, might be sup- 
posed to take a special interest in the ritual of the temple — 
the very reason which led to his association with the later 
Epistle of Barnabas. Also, he was called mos Trapa.K\rjcreu)<; 
(Ac 4 36 ), which seemed to tally with He 13 22 (rov \6yov r>}? 
7rapaKA7jo-€ws), just as the allusion to "beloved" in Ps 127 2 
( = 2 S i2 24f -) was made to justify the attribution of the psalm 
to king Solomon. The difficulty about applying 2 3 to a man 
like Barnabas was overlooked, and in North Africa, at any rate, 
the (Roman ?) tradition of his authorship prevailed, as Tertullian's 
words in de pudicitia 20 show : " volo ex redundantia alicuius 
etiam comitis apostolorum testimonium superinducere, idoneum 


confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistrorum. Extat 
enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis auctoritati 
viri, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituent in abstinentiae tenore : 
! aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potes- 
tatem?' (i Co 9 6 ). Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola 
Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum. Monens itaque 
discipulos.omissis omnibus initiis, ad perfectionem magis tendere," 
etc. (quoting He 6 4f -). What appeals to Tertullian in IIpos 
'Efipaiovs is its uncompromising denial of any second repentance. 
His increasing sympathy with the Montanists had led him to 
take a much less favourable view of the Shepherd of Hermas 
than he had once entertained ; he now contrasts its lax tone 
with the rigour of IIpos 'Efipaiovs, and seeks to buttress his 
argument on this point by insisting as much as he can on the 
authority of IIpos 'Efipaiovs as a production of the apostolic 
Barnabas. Where this tradition originated we cannot tell. 
Tertullian refers to it as a fact, not as an oral tradition ; he 
may have known some MS of the writing with the title Bapvdfia 
71-pos 'E/Jpatous (iirio-ToXri), and this may have come from Montanist 
circles in Asia Minor, as Zahn suggests. But all this is guessing 
in the dark about a guess in the dark. 

Since Paul was the most considerable letter-writer of the 
primitive church, it was natural that in some quarters this 
anonymous writing should be assigned to him, as was done 
apparently in the Alexandrian church, although even there 
scholarly readers felt qualms at an early period, and endeavoured 
to explain the idiosyncrasies of style by supposing that some 
disciple of Paul, like Luke, translated it from Hebrew into 
Greek. This Alexandrian tradition of Paul's authorship was 
evidently criticized in other quarters, and the controversy drew 
from Origen the one piece of enlightened literary criticism which 
the early discussions produced. 'On 6 x a P aKT VP T V^ ^ € '£ €aj< > "Js 
7rpo5 E/?paious iTriyeypa.p.p,evr]s eTricroAry? ovk e^et to iv Aoyu> 
iSudtikov tov o.tto(Tt6\ov, 6p.oXoyrjo-avTO<; kavTov IStwrrjv etvai toj 
Aoyw (2 Co II 6 ), TOvreoTi Tjj <ppdaei, aXXa £<tt]v fj iirLo-ToXr) 
(rvvOiaei ttjs Ae'^cws 'EAA^iHKioTe'pa, 7ras 6 e7rto"rap.€VOS Kpiveiv 
(ppdcretDv oia<£opas op.oXoyrjo'ai av. trdXiv re av on rd voi)p.aTa 

TTj'i f.TTLO'ToXrj'i 9aVfxd<Tld lo~TL, KCU OV ScVTtpa TWV aTTOO'T oXlkWV 

op.oXoyovfj.evwy ypappaTun', kou tovto av avp-cprjaai etvai dXrj$k<; 7ras 
6 ■n-poo~t)(wv ty) dvayvwaei rfj aTroo~ToXiKrj. . . . 'Eya; oi. diro<paivo- 
/xei'o? iLiroip. av on rd p.\v voi/p.aTa tou a7roo"T(>Aou ecrriV, r] St 
<f>pao~L<; kol 17 o~vv6eo~i<s a7rop.vrjp.ovevaavTOS Ttvos to. a7ro(TToAt/ca, xai 
d)0"ir€ptl o"^oAtoypa0^o-avTos tivos to. elprjfieva viro tov SiSao-xdXov. 
€i Tts ovv eKKXrjata t^ti Tavrrjv Tr]v iTTLO-ToXrjv u>S HavXov, avrrj 
€v8oKip.€LTU) koI iirl tovtu). oi yap tlxfj ol dp^aloi dVSpes <I>s HavXov 
airrjv 7rapaSfS(j)Kao-i. ti's St 6 ypdi//as tt/v eVicrToA^v, to dXr/Ots 


0€os oTScv (quoted by Eusebius, H.E. vi. 25. n-14). 1 Origen is 
too good a scholar to notice the guess that it was a translation 
from Hebrew, but he adds, 17 8« tts rjp.a.<; <f>6da-aaa la-ropia, iiro 

Tivwv filv \tyovT<i>v, on K\v;/xr/s 6 y€i'6[xevo<» iiri(TKOiro<i Puyxaicuv 
lypaxpi tt/v e7rto-ToAr/v, vtto Tivajv Se on AoukSs 6 ypaif/as to 

ciayye'Aiov Kai ras Ilpa^cis. The idea that Clement of Rome 
wrote it was, of course, an erroneous deduction from the echoes 
of it in his pages, almost as unfounded as the notion that Luke 
wrote it, either independently or as an amanuensis of Paul — a 
view probably due ultimately to the explanation of how his 
gospel came to be an apostolic, canonical work. Origen yields 
more to the " Pauline " interpretation of IIpos 'E/Jpcuous than is 
legitimate ; but, like Erasmus at a later day, 2 he was living in 
an environment where the "Pauline" tradition was almost a 
note of orthodoxy. Even his slight scruples failed to keep the 
question open. In the Eastern church, any hesitation soon 
passed away, and the scholarly scruples of men like Clement of 
Alexandria and Origen made no impression on the church at 
large. It is significant, for example, that when even Eusebius 
comes to give his own opinion {H.E. iii. 38. 2), he alters the 
hypothesis about Clement of Rome, and makes him merely 
the translator of a Pauline Hebrew original, not the author 
of a Greek original. As a rule, however, Hp6<s 'EfSpawv; was 
accepted as fully Pauline, and passed into the NT canon of the 
Asiatic, the Egyptian, and the Syriac churches without question. 
In the Syriac canon of a.d. 400 (text as in Souter's Text and 
Canon of NT, p. 226), indeed, it stands next to Romans in 
the list of Paul's epistles (see below, § 4). Euthalius, it is true, 
about the middle of the fifth century, argues for it in a way 
that indicates a current of opposition still flowing in certain 
quarters, but ecclesiastically ITpos 'E/?paioi>s in the East as a 
Pauline document could defy doubts. The firm conviction of 
the Eastern church as a whole comes out in a remark like that 
of Apollinarius the bishop of Laodicea, towards the close of the 
fourth century : irov yiypairrcn. on xapaKTrjp Itrri ttJs twocrrao-ttos 
6 vlo<; ; Trapa. tw diroa-rokw UavXuy iv rfj 7rpos E/Jpatou?. Ovk 
iKK\r)(TLd£eTai. 'A<f> ov Karr]yye\r] to cvayycAiov Xpto-Tov, IlavAou 
civai Tr€Tri(TTevTai r] ItruTToXr) {Dial, de sancta Tri?i. 922). 

It was otherwise in the Western church, where IIpos 'EfSpaCov: 
was for long either read simply as an edifying treatise, or, if 
regarded as canonical, assigned to some anonymous apostolic 

1 There is a parallel to the last words in the scoffing close of an epigram 
in the Greek Anthology (ix. 135) : yp&ipe tis ; olSe Beds' tLvos etvenev ; ol5e Kai 

a "Ut a stilo Pauli, quod ad phrasin attinet, longe lateque discrepat, ita 
ad spiritum ac pectus Paulinum vehementer accedit." 


writer rather than to Paul. Possibly the use made of IIpos 
'Efipaiovs by the Montanists and the Novatians, who welcomed 
its denial of a second repentance, compromised it in certain 
quarters. Besides, the Roman church had never accepted the 
Alexandrian tradition of Paul's authorship. Hence, even when, 
on its merits, it was admitted to the canon, there was a strong 
tendency to treat it as anonymous, as may be seen, for example, 
in Augustine's references. Once in the canon, however, it 
gradually acquired a Pauline prestige, and, as Greek scholar- 
ship faded, any scruples to the contrary became less and less 
intelligible. It was not till the study of Greek revived 
again, at the dawn of the Reformation, that the question was 

The data in connexion with the early fortunes of Tlpbs 'Efipalovs in church 
history belong to text-books on the Canon, like Zahn's Geschichte d. NT 
Kanons, i. 283 f., 577 f. , ii. 160 f., 358 f. ; Leipoldt's Geschichte d. NT /Canons, 
i. pp. i88f., 219 f. ; and Jacquier's Le Nouveau Testament dans UEglise 
Chrttienne, i. (191 1 ). 

Few characters mentioned in the NT have escaped the 
attention of those who have desired in later days to identify 
the author of IIpos 'Eftpaiovs. Apollos, Peter, Philip, Silvanus, 
and even Prisca have been suggested, besides Aristion, the 
alleged author of Mk 16 9 " 20 . I have summarized these views 
elsewhere (Introd. to Lit. of NT. % , pp. 438-442), and it is super- 
fluous here to discuss hypotheses which are in the main due to 
an irrepressible desire to construct NT romances. Perhaps our 
modern pride resents being baffled by an ancient document, but 
it is better to admit that we are not yet wiser on this matter 
than Origen was, seventeen centuries ago. The author of IIpos 
'E/3paiovs cannot be identified with any figure known to us in 
the primitive Christian tradition. He left great prose to some 
little clan of early Christians, but who they were and who he 
was, to aXrjOis #eos oTSev. To us he is a voice and no more. 
The theory which alone explains the conflicting traditions is that 
for a time the writing was circulated as an anonymous tract. 
Only on this hypothesis can the simultaneous emergence of 
the Barnabas and the Paul traditions in different quarters be 
explained, as well as the persistent tradition in the Roman 
church that it was anonymous. As Zahn sensibly concludes, 
" those into whose hands IIpos 'Eftpaiovs came either looked 
upon it as an anonymous writing from ancient apostolic times, or 
else resorted to conjecture. If Paul did not write it, they 
thought, then it must have been composed by some other 
prominent teacher of the apostolic church. Barnabas was such 
a man." In one sense, it was fortunate that the Pauline 
hypothesis prevailed so early and so extensively, for apart from 


this help it might have been difficult for ITpos 'Eftpatovs to win 
or to retain its place in the canon. But even when it had been 
lodged securely inside the canon, some Western churchmen still 
clung for a while to the old tradition of its anonymity, 1 although 
they could do no more than hold this as a pious opinion. 
The later church was right in assigning II/jos 'Efipaiow; a 
canonical position. The original reasons might be erroneous 
or doubtful, but even in the Western church, where they con- 
tinued to be questioned, there was an increasing indisposition 
to challenge their canonical result. 


Thrown back, in the absence of any reliable tradition, upon 
the internal evidence, we can only conclude that the writer was 
one of those personalities in whom the primitive church was 
more rich than we sometimes realize. " Si l'on a pu comparer 
saint Paul a Luther," says M^ndgoz, "nous comparerions 
volontiers l'auteur de l'Epitre aux H£breux a Melanchthon." 
He was a highly trained SiSao-KaAos, perhaps a Jewish Christian, 
who had imbibed the philosophy of Alexandrian Judaism before 
his conversion, a man of literary culture and deep religious 
feeling. He writes to what is apparently a small community or 
circle of Christians, possibly one of the household-churches, to 
which he was attached. For some reason or another he was 
absent from them, and, although he hopes to rejoin them before 
long, he feels moved to send them this letter (i3 23f> ) to rally 
them. It is possible to infer from 13 24 (see note) that they 
belonged to Italy ; in any case, IIp6s 'Efipaiovs was written either 
to or from some church in Italy. Beyond the fact that the 
writer and his readers had been evangelized by some of the 
disciples of Jesus (2 3 - 4 ), we know nothing more about them. 
The words in 2 3 - 4 do not mean that they belonged to the second 
generation, of course, in a chronological sense, for such words 
would have applied to the converts of any mission during the 
first thirty years or so after the crucifixion, and the only other 
inference to be drawn, as to the date, is from passages like io 32f -- 
and 13 7 , viz. that the first readers of IIpos 'E/fyxuW were not 
neophytes ; they had lived through some rough experiences, and 
indeed their friend expects from them a maturity of experience 
and intelligence which he is disappointed to miss (5 nt ) ; also, 

1 According to Professor Souter ( Text and Canon of NT, p. 190) the 
epistle is ignored by the African Canon (c. 360), Optatus of Mileue in 
Numidia (370-385), the Acts of the Donatist Controversy, Zeno of Verona, 
an African by birth, and Foebadius of Agen (06. post 392), while " Ambrosi- 
aster" (fourth century?) "uses the work as canonical, but always as an 
anonymous work." 


their original leaders have died, probably as martyrs (cp. on 13 7 ). 
For these and other reasons, a certain sense of disillusionment 
had begun to creep over them. Ilpos 'E/?pcu'ous is a Xoyos 
TrapaKX-qcreoy;, to Steady and rally people who are Treipa£6fievoi, 
their temptation being to renounce God, or at least to hesitate 
and retreat, to relax the fibre of loyal faith, as if God were too 
difficult to follow in the new, hard situation. Once, at the 
outset of their Christian career, they had been exposed to mob- 
rioting (io 32f -), when they had suffered losses of property, for the 
sake of the gospel, and also the loud jeers and sneers which 
pagans and Jews alike heaped sometimes upon the disciples. 
This they had borne manfully, in the first glow of their en 
thusiasm. Now, the more violent forms of persecution had 
apparently passed ; what was left was the dragging experience 
of contempt at the hand of outsiders, the social ostracism and 
shame, which were threatening to take the heart out of them. 
Such was their rough, disconcerting environment. Unless an 
illegitimate amount of imagination is applied to the internal data, 
they cannot be identified with what is known of any community 
in the primitive church, so scanty is our information. Least of 
all is it feasible to connect them with the supposed effects of the 
Jewish rebellion which culminated in a.d. 70. IIpos 'Efipaiov; 
cannot be later than about a.d. 85, as the use of it in Clement 
of Rome's epistle proves ; how much earlier it is, we cannot 
say, but the controversy over the Law, which marked the Pauline 
phase, is evidently over. 

It is perhaps not yet quite superfluous to point out that the use of the 
present tense (e.g. in j 8 - 20 8 3f - 9 8 ' - 13 10 ) is no clue to the date, as though this 
implied that the Jewish temple was still standing. The writer is simply 
using the historic present of actions described in scripture. It is a literary 
method which is common in writings long after A.D. 70, e.g. in Josephus, 
who observes (c. Apiojt, i. 7) that any priest who violates a Mosaic regulation 
airriydpevrai n^re rots /3w/j.ois iraplcTTaadat fi^re fJLerix e <- v T V* &X\rjs ayurTelas 
(so Ant. iii. 6. 7 -I2 > x i y - 2 - 2 > etc.). Clement of Rome similarly writes as 
though the Mosaic ritual were still in existence (40-41, t<£ yhp dpxiepei (diai 
XtiTovpylai dtdo/xivai elcriv . . . kclI Aevtrais tdiai SiaKoviai iirlKfivrai . . . 
■n-poarptpovrai OvcrLat if ' IepoixraX^M fJ.6vy), and the author of the Ep. ad 
Diognet. 3 writes that ol Si ye dv<rtais avry di al/mros kclI kvIvtjs ko.1 oXokclvtw- 
fidruv iirtTe\cii> oW/xfvoi Kal rai/rats rats rifj.aU avrbv ytpalpeiv, ov8ii> fioi 
SoKodcrt. dicupipeiv tu>v e/s to. Kuxpa tt)v avrrjv ivdeiKvv/xivoiv (piXoTi/xlav. The 
idea that the situation of the readers was in any way connected with the crisis 
of A.D. 66-70 in Palestine is unfounded. Upbs 'EfipaLovs has nothing to do 
with the Jewish temple, nor with Palestinian Christians. There is not a 
syllable in the writing which suggests that either the author or his readers 
had any connexion with or interest in the contemporary temple and ritual of 
Judaism ; their existence mattered as little to his idealist method of argu- 
ment as their abolition. When he observes (8 1S ) that the old Siad-qicr) was 
iyybs a<pavia-fj.oO, all he means is that the old regime, superseded now by 
Jesus, was decaying even in Jeremiah's age. 



The object of IIpos 'E/?paiou? may be seen from a brief 
analysis of its contents. The writer opens with a stately para- 
graph, introducing the argument that Jesus Christ as the Son of 
Clod is superior (kpclttw) to angels, in the order of revelation 
(i 1 -2 18 ), and this, not in spite of but because of his incarnation 
and sufferings. He is also superior (xpurTwv) even to Moses 
(3 1 " 6 ")) as a Son is superior to a servant. Instead of pursuing 
the argument further, the writer then gives an impressive bible 
reading on the 95th psalm, to prove that the People of God 
have still assured to them, if they will only have faith, the divine 
Rest in the world to come (3 6b -4 13 ). Resuming his argument, 
the writer now begins to show how Jesus as God's Son is superior 
to the Aaronic high priest (4 14 -5 10 ). This is the heart of his 
subject, and he stops for a moment to rouse the attention of his 
readers (5 11 -6 20 ) before entering upon the high theme. By a 
series of skilful transitions he has passed on from the Person of 
the Son, which is uppermost in chs. 1-4, to the Priesthood 
of the Son, which dominates chs. 7-8. Jesus as High Priest 
mediates a superior (kpcittwv) order of religion or haOriK-q than 
that under which Aaron and his successors did their work for the 
People of God, and access to God, which is the supreme need of 
men, is now secured fully and finally by the relation of Jesus to 
God, in virtue of his sacrifice (6 20 -8 13 ). The validity of this 
sacrifice is then proved (c^-io 18 ); it is absolutely efficacious, as 
no earlier sacrifice of victims could be, in securing forgiveness 
and fellowship for man. The remainder of the writing (io 19 -i3 24 ) 
is a series of impressive appeals for constancy. The first (10 19 - 31 ) 
is a skilful blend of encouragement and warning. He then 
appeals to the fine record of his readers (io 32f -), bidding them be 
worthy of their own past, and inciting them to faith in God by 
reciting a great roll-call of heroes and heroines belonging to God's 
People in the past, from Abel to the Maccabean martyrs (n 1 " 40 ). 
He further kindles their imagination and conscience by holding 
up Jesus as the Supreme Leader of all the faithful (12 1 - 3 ), even 
along the path of suffering; besides, he adds (12 4 - 11 ), suffering 
is God's discipline for those who belong to his household. To 
prefer the world (12 12 - 17 ) is to incur a fearful penalty; the one 
duty for us is to accept the position of fellowship with God, in a 
due spirit of awe and grateful confidence (i2 18 ' 29 ). A brief note 
of some ethical duties follows (13 1 ' 7 ), wi th a sudden warning 
against some current tendencies to compromise their spiritual 
religion (13 8 - 16 ). A postscript (I3 17-24 ), with some personalia, 
ends the epistle. 

It is artificial to divide up a writing of this kind, which is not 


a treatise on theology, and I have therefore deliberately abstained 
from introducing any formal divisions and subdivisions in the 
commentary. The flow of thought, with its turns and windings, 
is best followed from point to point. So far as the general plan 
goes, it is determined by the idea of the finality of the Christian 
revelation in Jesus the Son of God. This is brought out (A) by 
a proof that he is superior to angels (i 1 ^ 18 ) and Moses (3 1_6a ), 
followed by the special exhortation of 3 6b -4 13 . Thus far it is 
what may be termed the Personality of the Son which is discussed. 
Next (B) comes the Son as High Priest (4 14 ~7 28 ), including the 
parenthetical exhortation of 5 n -6 20 . The (C) Sacrifice of this 
High Priest in his Sanctuary then ^-io 18 ) is discussed, each of 
the three arguments, which are vitally connected, laying stress 
from one side or another upon the absolute efficacy of the 
revelation. This is the dominant idea of the writing, and it 
explains the particular line which the writer strikes out. He 
takes a very serious view of the position of his friends and 
readers. They are disheartened and discouraged for various 
reasons, some of which are noted in the course of the epistle. 
There is the strain of hardship, the unpleasant experience of 
being scoffed at, and the ordinary temptations of immorality, 
which may bring them, if they are not careful, to the verge of 
actual apostasy. The writer appears to feel that the only way to 
save them from ruining themselves is to put before them the 
fearful and unsuspected consequences of their failure. Hence 
three times over the writer draws a moving picture of the fate 
which awaits apostates and renegades (6 4f - io 26f - i2 15f -). But the 
special line of argument which he adopts in 5-10 18 must be 
connected somehow with the danger in which he felt his friends 
involved, and this is only to be explained if we assume that their 
relaxed interest in Christianity arose out of an imperfect concep- 
tion of what Jesus meant for their faith. He offers no theoretical 
disquisition ; it is to reinforce and deepen their conviction of the 
place of Jesus in religion, that he argues, pleads, and warns, 
dwelling on the privileges and responsibilities of the relationship 
in which Jesus had placed them. All the help they needed, all 
the hope they required, lay in the access to God mediated by 
Jesus, if they would only realize it. 

This is what makes the writing of special interest. In the 
first place (a) the author is urged by a practical necessity to 
think out his faith, or rather to state the full content of his faith, 
for the benefit of his readers. Their need puts him on his 
mettle. " Une chose surtant," says Anatole France, "donne le 
l'attrait a la pensee des hommes : c'est l'inquidtude. Un esprit 
qui n'est point anxieux m'irrite ou m'ennuie." In a sense all 
the NT writers are spurred by this anxiety, but the author 


of ITpos 'Efipaiow; pre-eminently. It is not anxiety about his 
personal faith, nor about the prospects of Christianity, but about 
the loyalty of those for whom he feels himself responsible ; his 
very certainty of the absolute value of Christianity makes him 
anxious when he sees his friends ready to give it up, anxious on 
their behalf, and anxious to bring out as lucidly and persuasively 
as possible the full meaning of the revelation of God in Jesus. 
What he writes is not a theological treatise in coM blood, but 
a statement of the faith, alive with practical interest. The 
situation of his readers has stirred his own mind, and he bends 
all his powers of thought and emotion to rally them. There is a 
vital urgency behind what he writes for his circle. But (6), more 
than this, the form into which he throws his appeal answers to 
the situation of his readers. He feels that the word for them is 
the absolute worth of Jesus as the Son of God ; it is to bring 
this out that he argues, in the middle part of his epistle, so 
elaborately and anxiously about the priesthood and sacrifice of 
Jesus. The idealistic conception of the two spheres, the real 
and eternal, and the phenomenal (which is the mere o-Kid and 
vTToSeiyfjLa, a Trapa/3o\rj, an avriTwrov of the former), is applied to 
the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which inaugurates and realizes the 
eternal SLaOrJK-rj between God and man. In a series of contrasts, 
he brings out the superiority of this revelation to the OT ?)iadr)Ky] 
with its cultus. But not because the contemporary form of the 
latter had any attractions for his readers. It is with the archaic 
o-K-qvf) described in the OT that he deals, in order to elucidate 
the final value of Jesus and his sacrifice under the new hiaQ-qK-q, 
which was indeed the real and eternal one. To readers like his 
friends, with an imperfect sense of all that was contained in their 
faith, he says, " Come back to your bible, and see how fully it 
suggests the positive value of Jesus." Christians were finding 
Christ in the LXX, especially his sufferings in the prophetic 
scriptures, but our author falls back on the pentateuch and the 
psalter especially to illustrate the commanding position of Jesus 
as the Son of God in the eternal Sia6^Krj, and the duties as well 
as the privileges of living under such a final revelation, where 
the purpose and the promises of God for his People are realized 
as they could not be under the OT hiaO-qK-q. Why the writer 
concentrates upon the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus in this 
eternal order of things, is due in part to his general conception 
of religion (see pp. xliiif.). For him there could be no religion 
without a priest. But this idea is of direct service to his readers, 
as he believes. Hence the first mention of Jesus as dpxtcpeu's 
occurs as a reason for loyalty and confidence (2 14f -). Nothing 
is more practical in religion than an idea, a relevant idea power- 
fully urged. When the writer concentrates for a while upon 


this cardinal idea of Jesus as apxuptvs, therefore, it is because 
nothing can be more vital, he thinks, for his friends than to show 
them the claims and resources of their faith, disclosing the 
rich and real nature of God's revelation to them in his Son. 
Access to God, confidence in God, pardon for sins of the past, 
and hope for the future — all this is bound up with the 8ia9r)Kr) of 
Christ, and the writer reveals it between the lines of the LXX, 
to which as members of the People of God his friends naturally 
turned for instruction and revelation. This SiaOrJKf), he argues, 
is far superior to the earlier one, as the Son of God is superior to 
angels and to Moses himself; nay more, it is superior in efficacy, 
as the real is superior to its shadowy outline, for the sacrifice 
which underlies any Sta^xv; is fulfilled in Christ as it could not 
be under the levitical cultus. The function of Christ as high 
priest is to mediate the direct access of the People to God, and 
all this has been done so fully and finally that Christians have 
simply to avail themselves of its provisions for their faith and 

What the writer feels called upon to deal with, therefore, is 
not any sense of disappointment in his readers that they had not 
an impressive ritual or an outward priesthood, nor any hankering 
after such in contemporary Judaism ; it is a failure to see that 
Christianity is the absolute religion, a failure which is really 
responsible for the unsatisfactory and even the critical situation 
of the readers. To meet this need, the writer argues as well as 
exhorts. He seeks to show from the LXX how the Christian 
faith alone fulfils the conditions of real religion, and as he 
knows no other religion than the earlier phase in Israel, he takes 
common ground with his readers on the LXX record of the first 
hiaOrjKiq, in order to let them see even there the implications and 
anticipations of the higher. 

But while the author never contemplates any fusion of 
Christianity with Jewish legalism, and while the argument betrays 
no trace of Jewish religion as a competing attraction for the 
readers, it might be argued that some speculative Judaism had 
affected the mind of the readers. No basis for this can be 
found in i3 9f \ Yet if there were any proselytes among the 
readers, they may have felt the fascination of the Jewish system, 
as those did afterwards who are warned by Ignatius (ad Philad. 
6, etc.), "Better listen to Christianity from a circumcised Chris- 
tian than to Judaism from one uncircumcised." " It is mon- 
strous to talk of Jesus Christ and tov8cu£«v" (ad Ma^nes. 10). 
This interpretation was put forward by Haring (Studien und 
Kritiken, 1891, pp. 589 f.), and it has been most ingeniously 
argued by Professor Purdy (Expositor 91 , xix. pp. 123-139), who 
thinks that the emphasis upon "Jesus" means that the readers 


were exposed to the seductions of a liberal Judaism which offered 
an escape from persecution and other difficulties by presenting 
a Christ who was spiritual, divorced from history ; that this 
liberal, speculative Judaism came forward as "a more developed 
and perfected type of religion than Christianity " ; and that, 
without being legalistic, it claimed to be a traditional, ritualistic 
faith, which was at once inward and ceremonial. The objection 
to such interpretations, 1 however, is that they explain ignotutn 
per ignotius. We know little or nothing of such liberal Judaism 
in the first century, any more than of a tendency on the part of 
Jewish Christians to abandon Christianity about a.d. 70 for their 
ancestral faith. Indeed any influence of Jewish propaganda, 
ritualistic or latitudinarian, must be regarded as secondary, at 
the most, in the situation of the readers as that is to be inferred 
from IIpos 'E/3patovs itself. When we recognize the real method 
and aim of the writer, it becomes clear that he was dealing with 
a situation which did not require any such influence to account 
for it. The form taken by his argument is determined by the 
conception, or rather the misconception, of the faith entertained 
by his friends ; and this in turn is due not to any political or 
racial factors, but to social and mental causes, such as are 
sufficiently indicated in IIpos 'Efipaiovs itself. Had the danger 
been a relapse into Judaism of any kind, it would have implied 
a repudiation of Jesus Christ as messiah and divine — the very 
truth which the writer can assume ! What he needs to do is not 
to defend this, but to develop it. 

The writing, therefore, for all its elaborate structure, has a 
spontaneous aim. It is not a homily written at large, to which 
by some afterthought, on the part of the writer or of some editor, 
a few personalia have been appended in ch. 13. The argu- 
mentative sections bear directly and definitely upon the situa- 
tion of the readers, whom the writer has in view throughout, 
even when he seems to be far from their situation. Which brings 
us to the problem of the literary structure of IIpos 'E/Spai'ous. 


See especially W. Wrede's monograph, Das literarische Rdtsel d. Hebraer- 
briefs (1906), with the essays of E. Burggaller and R. Perdelwitz in Zeitschrift 
fur Nettlest. Wissenschaft (1908, pp. Iiof. ; 1910, pp. 59 f., 105 f.); V. 
Monod's De titulo epistulae vulgo ad Hebratos inscriptae (1910) ; C. C 

1 Cp. , further, Professor Dickie's article in Expositor* \ v. pp. 371 f. The 
notion that the writer is controverting an external view of Christ's person, 
which shrank, e.g., from admitting his humiliation and real humanity, had 
been urged by Julius Kogel in Die Verborgenheit Jesu als des Messias 
(Greifenswald, 1909) and in Der Sohn und die Sbhtu, ein exegetische Studit 
zu Heb. 2 5-18 (1904). 


Torrey's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature (191 1), pp. 137-156; 
J. W. Slot's De letterknndige vorm v. d. Brief aan de hebrder (1912), with 
J. Quentel's essay in Revue Biblique (1912, pp. 50 f. ) and M. Jones' paper 
in Expositor*, xii. 426 f. 

The literary problem of IIpos 'Efipalovs is raised by the 
absence of any address and the presence of personal matter in 
ch. 13. Why (a) has it no introductory greeting? And why (b) 
has it a postscript ? As for the former point (a), there may have 
been, in the original, an introductory title. IIpos 'E/?paious opens 
with a great sentence (i lf ), but Eph i 3f - is just such another, 
and there is no reason why the one should not have followed a 
title-address any more than the other. 1 It may have been lost 
by accident, in the tear and wear of the manuscript, for such 
accidents are not unknown in ancient literature. This is, at 
any rate, more probable than the idea that it was suppressed 
because the author (Barnabas, Apollos?) was not of sufficiently 
apostolic rank for the canon. Had this interest been operative, 
it would have been perfectly easy to alter a word or two in the 
address itself. Besides, IIpos 'E/?paious was circulating long 
before it was admitted to the canon, and it circulated even after- 
wards as non-canonical ; yet not a trace of any address, Pauline 
or non-Pauline, has ever survived. Which, in turn, tells against 
the hypothesis that such ever existed — at least, against the 
theory that it was deleted when the writing was canonized. If 
the elision of the address ever took place, it must have been 
very early, and rather as the result of accident than deliberately. 
Yet there is no decisive reason why the writing should not have 
begun originally as it does in its present form. Nor does this 
imply (b) that the personal data in ch. 13 are irrelevant. IIpos 
'E{3paiov<; has a certain originality in form as well as in content ; 
it is neither an epistle nor a homily, pure and simple. True, 
down to 12 29 (or 13 17 ) there is little or nothing that might not 
have been spoken by a preacher to his audience, and Valckenaer 
(on 4 3 ) is right, so far, in saying, " haec magnifica ad Hebraeos 
missa dissertatio oratio potius dicenda est quam epistola." Yet 
the writer is not addressing an ideal public ; he is not composing 
a treatise for Christendom at large. It is really unreal to ex- 
plain away passages like 5 llf - io 32f - i2 4f * and 13 1 " 9 as rhetorical 

IIpos 'Efipaiovs was the work of a Sioao-*aAos, who knew how 
to deliver a Ao'yos 7rapa*cAT/o-€ws. Parts of it probably represent 
what he had used in preaching already (e.g. 3 7 ). But, while it 
has sometimes the tone of sermon notes written out, it is not a 

1 Ep. Barnabas begins with ade\<pol, oOrws del r]u.ds (ppovdv irepl 'Itjo-ou 
XpuTTov (is wepl Oeou, etc. ; 2 Clement starts with a greeting, x^peTe, viol 
xal Ovyartpes, iv 6v6fiari. Kvplov rov dyair^o-avro! ti/xSls fr clpfyrQ, 


sermon in the air. To strike out 1319-22-24 or j2i-~.1e-19.22f. 
(Torrey) l does not reduce it from a letter or epistle to a sermon 
like 2 Clement. Thus, e.g., a phrase like 11 s2 (see note) is as 
intelligible in a written work as in a spoken address. It is only 
by emptying passages like 5 llf * and io 32f - of their full meaning 
that anyone can speak of the writer as composing a sermon at 
large or for an ideal public. Part of the force of 5 uf -, e.g., is due 
to the fact that the writer is dealing with a real situation, pleading 
that in what he is going to say he is not writing simply to display 
his own talent or to please himself, but for the serious, urgent 
need of his readers. They do not deserve what he is going to 
give them. But he will give it ! A thoroughly pastoral touch, 
which is lost by being turned into a rhetorical excuse for de- 
ploying some favourite ideas of his own. According to Wrede, 
the author wrote in i3 18 - 19 on the basis of (Philem 22 ) 2 Co 
jii. 12 t0 m ake it appear as though Paul was the author, and then 
added 13 23 on the basis of Ph 2 19 - 23 - 24 ; but why he should mix 
up these reminiscences, which, according to Wrede, are contra- 
dictory, it is difficult to see. Had he wished to put a Pauline 
colour into the closing paragraphs, he would surely have done 
it in a lucid, coherent fashion, instead of leaving the supposed 
allusions to Paul's Roman imprisonment so enigmatic. But, though 
Wrede thinks that the hypothesis of a pseudonymous conclusion 
is the only way of explaining the phenomena of ch. 13, he agrees 
that to excise it entirely is out of the question. Neither the 
style nor the contents justify such a radical theory, 2 except on 
the untenable hypothesis that 1-12 is a pure treatise. The 
analogies of a doxology being followed by personal matter (e.g. 
2 Ti 4 18 , 1 P 4 11 etc.) tell against the idea that IIpos 'Efipaiovs 
must have ended with 13 21 , and much less could it have ended 
with 13 17 . To assume that the writer suddenly bethought him, 
at the end, of giving a Pauline appearance to what he had 
written, and that he therefore added i3 22f -, is to credit him with 
too little ability. Had he wished to convey this impression, he 
would certainly have gone further and made changes in the 
earlier part. Nor is it likely that anyone added the closing 
verses in order to facilitate its entrance into the NT canon by 
bringing it into line with the other epistles. The canon was 
drawn up for worship, and if ITpos 'E(3paiovs was originally a 
discourse, it seems very unlikely that anyone would have gone 

1 To excise I3 1 " 7 as a "formless jumble of rather commonplace admoni- 
tions " is a singular misjudgment. 

2 The linguistic proof is cogently led by C. R. Williams in the Journal 
of Biblical Literature (1911), pp. 129-136, who shows that the alleged 
special parallels between He 13 and Paul are neither so numerous nor so 
significant as is commonly supposed, and that the only fair explanation of 
He 13 as a whole is that it was written to accompany 1-12. 


out of his way, on this occasion, to add some enigmatic personal 
references. In short, while IIpos 'Efipaiovs betrays here and 
there the interests and methods of an effective preacher, the 
epistolary form is not a piece of literary fiction ; still less is it 
due (in ch. 13) to some later hand. It is hardly too much to 
say that the various theories about the retouching of the 13th 
chapter of IIoos 'Efipaiovs are as valuable, from the standpoint 
of literary criticism, as Macaulay's unhesitating belief that Dr. 
Johnson had revised and retouched Cecilia. 

§ 2. The Religious Ideas. 

In addition to the text-books on NT theology, consult Riehm's Lehrbegriff 
des Hebrderbriefs i (1867), W. Milligan's Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood 
of our Lord (1891), Menegoz's La Thiologie de FEpitre aux Hibreux (1894), 
A. Seeberg's Der Tod Christi (1895), A. B. Bruce's The Epistle to the 
Hebrews (1899), G. Milligan's The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
(1899), G. Vos on "The Priesthood of Christ in Hebrews" {Princeton 
Theological Review, 1907, pp. 423 f., 579 f.), Du Bose's Highpriesthood and 
Sacrifice (1908), A. Nairne's The Epistle of Priesthood (1913), H. L. 
MacNeill's Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1914), H. A. A. 
Kennedy's Theology of the Epistles (1919, pp. 182-221), and E. F. Scott's 
The Epistle to the Hebrews (1922). 

Many readers who are not children will understand what Mr 
Edmund Gosse in Father and Son (pp. 89 f.) describes, in telling 
how his father read aloud to him the epistle. " The extraordinary 
beauty of the language — for instance, the matchless cadences and 
images of the first chapter — made a certain impression upon my 
imagination, and were (I think) my earliest initiation into the 
magic of literature. I was incapable of defining what I felt, but 
I certainly had a grip in the throat, which was in its essence a 
purely aesthetic emotion, when my father read, in his pure, large, 
ringing voice, such passages as 'The heavens are the work of 
Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou remainest, and they 
shall all wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt Thou 
fold them up, and they shall be changed ; but Thou art the same, 
and Thy years shall not fail.' But the dialectic parts of the 
epistle puzzled and confused me. Such metaphysical ideas as 
'laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works' 
and 'crucifying the Son of God afresh' were not successfully 
brought down to the level of my understanding. . . . The 
melodious language, the divine forensic audacities, the magnifi- 
cent ebb and flow of argument which make the Epistle to the 
Hebrews such a miracle, were far beyond my reach, and they 
only bewildered me." They become less bewildering when they 
are viewed in the right perspective. The clue to them lies in the 


philosophical idea which dominates the outlook of the writer, and 
in the symbolism which, linked to this idea, embodied his 
characteristic conceptions of religion. We might almost say that, 
next to the deflecting influence of the tradition which identified 
our epistle with the Pauline scheme of thought and thereby 
missed its original and independent contribution to early Christi- 
anity, nothing has so handicapped its appeal as the later use of it 
in dogmatic theology. While the author of IIpos 'E/3/Wous often 
turned the literal into the figurative, his theological interpreters 
have been as often engaged in turning the figurative expressions 
of the epistle into what was literal. A due appreciation of 
the symbolism has been the slow gain of the historical method 
as applied to the classics of primitive Christianity. There is 
no consistent symbolism, indeed, not even in the case of the 
apxt-epev? ; in the nature of the case, there could not be. But 
symbolism there is, and symbolism of a unique kind. 


The author writes from a religious philosophy of his own — 
that is, of his own among the NT writers. The philosophical 
element in his view of the world and God is fundamentally 
Platonic. Like Philo and the author of Wisdom, he interprets 
the past and the present alike in terms of the old theory (cp. on 
8 5 10 1 ) that the phenomenal is but an imperfect, shadowy trans- 
cript of what is eternal and real. He applies this principle to the 
past. What was all the Levitical cultus in bygone days but a 
faint copy of the celestial archetype, a copy that suggested by its 
very imperfections the future and final realization ? In such 
arguments (chs. 7-10) he means to declare "that Christianity 
is eternal, just as it shall be everlasting, and that all else is only 
this, that the true heavenly things of which it consists thrust 
themselves forward on to this bank and shoal of time, and took 
cosmical embodiment, in order to suggest their coming ever- 
lasting manifestation." 1 The idea that the seen and material is 
but a poor, provisional replica of the unseen and real order of 
things (to. iirovpdvia, to. iv rots ovpavols, to. p.77 craXevofieva), pervades 
IIpos 'E/?paious. Thus faith (n lf *) means the conviction, the 
practical realization, of this world of realities, not only the belief 
that the universe does not arise out of mere <paiv6p.eva, but the 
conviction that life must be ordered, at all costs, by a vision of 
the unseen, or by obedience to a Voice unheard by any outward 
ear. Similarly the outward priest, sanctuary, and sacrifices of 
the ancient cultus were merely the shadowy copy of the real, as 
manifested in Jesus with his self-sacrifice, his death being, as 

1 A. B. Davidson, Biblical and Literary Essays (p. 317). 


Sabatier says, " une fonction sacerdotale, un acte transcendanl 
de purification rituelle, accompli hors de l'humanite' " {La Doctrine 
de r Expiation, p. 37). Such is the philosophical strain which 
permeates IIpos 'Eftpaiow;. The idea of heavenly counterparts is 
not, of course, confined to Platonism ; it is Sumerian, in one of 
its roots (cp. on 8 5 ), and it had already entered apocalyptic. 
But our author derives it from his Alexandrian religious philo- 
sophy (transmuting the koct/xos votjtos into the more vivid and 
devotional figures of an oikos or 7rdAis 6eov, a 7raTpis or even a 
crKTqvr] a\r)$Lvq), just as elsewhere he freely uses Aristotelian ideas 
like that of the tcAos or final end, with its TeAeiWcs or sequence of 
growth, and shows familiarity with the idea of the efts (5 14 ). The 
tcAciWis (see on 5 9 ) idea is of special importance, as it denotes 
for men the work of Christ in putting them into their proper 
status towards God (see on 2 10 ). " By a single offering he has 
made the sanctified perfect for all time" (T£TeAetWev, io 14 ), the 
offering or irpoa-cpopd being himself, and the "perfecting" being 
the act of putting the People into their true and final relation 
towards God. This the Law, with its outward organization of 
priests and animal sacrifices, could never do ; "as the Law has a 
mere shadow of the bliss that is to be, instead of representing 
the reality of that bliss (viz. the ' perfect ' relationship between 
God and men), it can never perfect those who draw near " (io 1 ). 
This gives us the focus for viewing the detailed comparison 
between the levitical sacrifices and priests on the one hand and 
the KpeiTTutv Jesus. "You see in your bible," the writer argues, 
"the elaborate system of ritual which was once organized for the 
forgiveness of sins and the access of the people to God. All 
this was merely provisional and ineffective, a shadow of the 
Reality which already existed in the mind of God, and which is 
now ours in the sacrifice of Jesus." Even the fanciful argument 
from the priesthood of Melchizedek (6 20 -7 17 ) — fanciful to us, but 
forcible then — swings from this conception. What the author 
seeks to do is not to prove that there had been from the first a 
natural or real priesthood, superior to the levitical, a priesthood 
fulfilled in Christ. His aim primarily is to discredit the levitical 
priesthood of bygone days ; it was anticipated in the divine 
order by that of Melchizedek, he shows, using a chronological 
argument resembling that of Paul in Gal 3 8f -, on the principle 
that what is prior is superior. But what leads him to elaborate 
specially the Melchizedek priesthood is that it had already played 
an important role in Jewish speculation in connexion with the 
messianic hope. Philo had already identified Melchizedek out- 
right with the Logos or possibly even with the messiah. Whether 
the author of IIpos 'E/?/Wous intends to contradict Philo or not, 
he takes a different line, falling back upon his favourite psalm, 


the noth, which in the Greek version, the only one known to 
him, had put forward not only the belief that messiah was icpevs €is 
tov auova Kara ttjv rd$iv MeA^io-coV*, but the Alexandrian belief 
in the pre-existence of messiah (v. 8 ck yao-rpos vpo iwatpopov 
iieyewrja-d <rc). Here then, by Alexandrian methods of exegesis, 
in the pentateuch text combined with the psalm, he found 
scripture proof of an original priesthood which was not levitical, 
not transferable, and permanent. This priesthood of Melchize- 
dek was, of course, not quite a perfect type of Christ's, for it 
did not include any sacrifice, but, as resting on personality, 
not on heredity, 1 it did typify, he held, that eternal priesthood of 
the Christ which was to supersede the levitical, for all the ancient 
prestige of the latter. As this prestige was wholly biblical for 
the writer and his readers, so it was essential that the disproof of 
its validity should be biblical also. Though he never uses either 
the idea of Melchizedek offering bread and wine to typify the 
elements in the eucharist, in spite of the fact that Philo once 
allegorized this trait (de Leg. Alleg. iii. 25), or the idea of 
Melchizedek being uncircumcised (as he would have done, had 
he been seriously arguing with people who were in danger of 
relapsing into contemporary Judaism), he does seem to glance 
at the combination of the sacerdotal and the royal functions. 
Like Philo, though more fully, he notices the religious signi- 
ficance of the etymology " king of righteousness " and " king of 
peace," the reason being that throughout his argument he 
endeavours repeatedly to preserve something of the primitive 
view of Jesus as messianic king, particularly because the idea of 
the divine /WiAcia plays next to no part in his scheme of 
thought. Sometimes the combination of the sacerdotal and 
royal metaphors is incongruous enough, although it is not 
unimpressive (e.g. io 12 - 13 ). Primarily it is a survival of the 
older militant messianic category which is relevant in the first 
chapter (see i 8f ), but out of place in the argument from the 
priesthood ; the reference is really due to the desire to reaffirm 
the absolute significance of Christ's work, and by way of anticipa- 
tion he sounds this note even in 7 1 - 2 . Later on, it opens up 
into an interesting instance of his relation to the primitive 
eschatology. To his mind, trained in the Alexandrian philo- 
sophy of religion, the present world of sense and time stands 
over against the world of reality, the former being merely 
the shadow and copy of the latter. There is an archetypal 

1 The writer is trying to express an idea which, as Prof. E. F. Scott 
argues (pp. 207 f.), "underlies all our modern thought — social and political 
as well as religious," viz. that true authority is not prescriptive but personal ; 
"the priesthood which can bring us nearer God must be one of inherent 
character and personality." 



order of things, eternal and divine, to which the mundane order 
but dimly corresponds, and only within this higher order, eternal 
and invisible, is access to God possible for man. On such a 
view as this, which ultimately (see pp. xxxi-xxxii) goes back to 
Platonic idealism, and which had been worked out by Philo, the 
real world is the transcendent order of things, which is the 
pattern for the phenomenal universe, so that to attain God man 
must pass from the lower and outward world of the senses to the 
inner. But how? Philo employed the Logos or Reason as 
the medium. Our author similarly holds that men must attain 
this higher world, but for him it is a a-K-qv-q, a sanctuary, the real 
Presence of God, and it is entered not through ecstasy or mystic 
rapture, but through connexion with Jesus Christ, who has not 
only revealed that world but opened the way into it. The 
Presence of God is now attainable as it could not be under the 
outward cultus of the a-Krjvrj in the OT, for the complete sacrifice 
has been offered " in the realm of the spirit," thus providing for 
the direct access of the people to their God. The full bliss of the 
fellowship is still in the future, indeed ; it is not to be realized 
finally until Jesus returns for his people, for he is as yet only their 
7rpdS/3o/i,os (6 20 ). The primitive eschatology required and received 
this admission from the writer, though it is hardly consonant 
with his deeper thought. And this is why he quotes for example 
the old words about Jesus waiting in heaven till his foes are 
crushed (io 12 - 13 ). He is still near enough to the primitive period to 
share the forward look (see, e.g., 2 2f - q 28 io 37 ), and unlike Philo, he 
does not allow his religious idealism to evaporate his eschatology. 
But while this note of expectation is sounded now and then, it 
is held that Christians already experience the powers of the 
world to come. The new and final order has dawned ever since 
the sacrifice of Jesus was made, and the position of believers is 
guaranteed. " You have come to mount Sion, the city of the 
living God." The entrance of Jesus has made a fresh, living 
way for us, which is here and now open. " For all time he is 
able to save those who approach God through him, as he is 
always living to intercede on their behalf." Christians enjoy the 
final status of relationship to God in the world of spirit and 
reality, in virtue of the final sacrifice offered by Jesus the Son. 


What was this sacrifice ? How did the writer understand it ? 
(a) The first thing to be said is that in his interpretation of the 
sacrifice of Jesus, he takes the piacular view. Calvin (Instit. ii. 
15. 6) maintains that, as for the priesthood of Christ, " finem et 
usum eius esse ut sit mediator purus omni macula, qui sanctitate 


sua Deum nobis conciliet. Sed quia aditum occupat justa 
maledictio, et Deus pro judicis officio nobis infensus est, ut nobis 
favorem comparet sacerdos ad placandam iram ipsius Dei, piacu- 
lum intervenire necesse est. . . . Qua de re prclixe apostolus 
disputat in epistola ad Hebraeos a septimo capite fere ad finem 
usque decimi." Matthew Arnold is not often found beside 
Calvin, but he shares this error. " Turn it which way we will, 
the notion of appeasement of an offended God by vicarious 
sacrifice, which the Epistle to the Hebrews apparently sanctions, 
will never truly speak to the religious sense, or bear fruit for 
true religion " (St. Paul and Protestantism, p. 72). Arnold saves 
himself by the word " apparently," but the truth is that this 
idea is not sanctioned by Ilpos 'Efipaiovs at all. The interpreta- 
tion of Calvin confuses Paul's doctrine of expiation with the 
piacular view of our author. The entire group of ideas about 
the law, the curse, and the wrath of God is alien to IIpos 
'E/3pcuovs. The conception of God is indeed charged with 
wholesome awe (cp. on i2 28 - 29 ); but although God is never 
called directly the Father of Christians, his attitude to men is 
one of grace, and the entire process of man's approach is 
initiated by him (2 9 13 20 ). God's wrath is reserved for the 
apostates (io 29 " 31 ); it does not brood over unregenerate men, to 
be removed by Christ. Such a notion could hardly have occurred 
to a man with predilections for the typical significance of the OT 
ritual, in which the sacrifices were not intended to avert the 
wrath of God so much as to reassure the people from time to 
time that their relations with their God had not been interrupted. 
The function of Christ, according to our author, is not to appease 
the divine wrath (see on 2 9f - 17 ), but to establish once and lor all 
the direct fellowship of God with his people, and a picturesque 
archaic phrase like that in 1 2 24 about the alfia pavTurp.ov cannot 
be pressed into the doctrine that Jesus by his sacrifice averted or 
averts the just anger of God. On the other hand, while the 
author knows the primitive Christian idea of God's fatherhood, 
it is not in such terms that he expresses his own conception of 
God. Philo (De Exsecrationibus, 9) describes how the Jews in 
the diaspora will be encouraged to return to Israel and Israel's 
God, particularly by his forgiving character (kv\ p.h> ei7r€iK£i'a koX 

XprjaTOTrjTi tov Trapa.Ka\ovp.evov avyyvu) fxrjv irpo Tip.<Dpia<; d«i TiOtv- 

tos) ; the end of their approach to God, he adds, oiSlv hepnv 7} 
tiapeoTelv t<3 6ew KaOairep viovs irarpi. But the author of IIpos 
'Eftpaiovs lays no stress upon the Fatherhood of God for men ; 
except in connexion with the discipline of suffering, he never 
alludes to the goodness of God as paternal, even for Christians, 
and indeed it is only in OT quotations that God is called even 
the Father of the Son (i 5 5 s ). He avoids, even more strictly 


than Jesus, the use of love-language. The verb dya7rav only 
occurs twice, both times in an OT citation ; dyaTrrj is also used 
only twice, and never of man's attitude towards God. There is 
significance in such linguistic data ; they corroborate the 
impression that the author takes a deep view (see on 12 23 ) of the 
homage and awe due to God. Godly reverence, eu\a/?eia (see 
on 5 7 ), characterized Jesus in his human life, and it is to charac- 
terize Christians towards God, i.e. an awe which is devoid of 
anything like nervous fear, an ennobling sense of the greatness 
of God, but still a reverential awe. This is not incompatible 
with humble confidence or with a serious joy, with Trapprjcria 
(cp. on 3 16 ). Indeed "all deep joy has something of the awful 
in it," as Carlyle says. "E^w/icv \a-piv is the word of our author 
(12 28 ); the standing attitude of Christians towards their God is 
one of profound thankfulness for his goodness to them. Only, 
it is to be accompanied fiera cuAa/Jcias kcu Se'ous. We are to feel 
absolutely secure under God's will, whatever crises or catastrophes 
befall the universe, and the security is at once to thrjll (see on 
2 12 ) and to subdue our minds. Hence, while God's graciousness 
overcomes any anxiety in man, his sublimity is intended to 
elevate and purify human life by purging it of easy emotion and 
thin sentimentalism. This is not the primitive awe of religion 
before the terrors of the unknown supernatural ; the author 
believes in the gracious, kindly nature of God (see on 2 10 , also 
6 10 13 16 etc.), but he has an instinctive horror of anything like a 
shallow levity. The tone of Hpos 'E/3paiou? resembles, indeed, 
that of I P I 17 («i iraripa €7rtKaA.eur0€ tov a.Trpo<rwTro\TqirT(i>s Kpivovra 
Kara to (ko.(ttov Ipyov, iv </»d/3a) tov tt}s 7rapot/cias ifiwv xpovov 
avaa-Tpa(pr]T(.) ; there may be irreverence in religion, not only in 
formal religion but for other reasons in spiritual religion. Yet 
the special aspect of our epistle is reflected in what Jesus once 
said to men tempted to hesitate and draw back in fear of 
suffering : " I will show you whom to fear — fear Him who after 
He has killed has power to cast you into Gehenna. Yes, I tell 
you, fear Him" (Lk 12 5 ). This illustrates the spirit and 
situation of IIpos 'Efipaiow;, where the writer warns his friends 
against apostasy by reminding them of 6 #«os £wv and of the 
judgment. We might almost infer that in his mind the dominant 
conception is God regarded as transcendental, not with regard 
to creation but with regard to frail, faulty human nature. What 
engrosses the writer is the need not so much of a medium 
between God and the material universe, as of a medium between 
his holiness and human sin (see on 12 23 ). 

(i>) As for the essence and idea of the sacrifice, while he 
refers to a number of OT sacrifices by way of illustration, his 
main analogy comes from the ritual of atonement-day in the 


levitical code (Lv 16), where it was prescribed that once a year 
the highpriest was to enter the inner shrine by himself, the shrine 
within which stood the sacred box or ark symbolizing the divine 
Presence. The elaborate sacrifices of the day are only glanced 
at by our author. Thus he never alludes to the famous scape- 
goat, which bore away the sins of the people into the desert. 
All he mentions is the sacrifice of certain animals, as propitiation 
for the highpriest's own sins and also for those of the nation. 
Carrying some blood of these animals, the priest was to smear 
the Ikacrrrjpiov or cover of the ark. This had a twofold object, 
(i) Blood was used to reconsecrate the sanctuary (Lv 16 16 ). 
This was a relic of the archaic idea that the life-bond between 
the god and his worshippers required to be renewed by sacred 
blood ; " the holiness of the altar is liable to be impaired, and 
requires to be refreshed by an application of holy blood." l 
Our author refers to this crude practice in q 23 . But his 
dominant interest is in (ii) the action of the highpriest as he 
enters the inner shrine ; it is not the reconsecration of the 
sanctuary with its altar, but the general atonement there made 
for the sins of the People, which engrosses him. The application 
of the victim's blood to the IXaaT-rjpiov by the divinely appointed 
highpriest was believed to propitiate Yahweh by cleansing the 
People from the sins which might prevent him from dwelling 
any longer in the land or among the People. The annual 
ceremony was designed to ensure his Presence among them, " to 
enable the close relationship between Deity and man to continue 
undisturbed. The logical circle — that the atoning ceremonies 
were ordered by God to produce their effect upon himself — was 
necessarily unperceived by the priestly mind " (Montefiore, 
Hibbert Lectures, p. 337). What the rite, as laid down in the 
bible, was intended to accomplish was simply, for the author of 
IIpos 'Eftpaiovs, to renew the life-bond between God and the 
People. This sacrifice offered by the highpriest on atonement- 
day was the supreme, piacular action of the levitical cultus. 
Once a year it availed to wipe out the guilt of all sins, whatever 
their nature, ritual or moral, which interrupted the relationship 
between God and his People. 2 For it was a sacrifice designed 
for the entire People as the community of God. The blood of 
the victims was carried into the inner shrine, on behalf of the 
People outside the sanctuary ; this the highpriest did for them, 
as he passed inside the curtain which shrouded the inner shrine. 
Also, in contrast to the usual custom, the flesh of the victims, 
instead of any part being eaten as a meal, was carried out and 
burned up. In all this the writer finds a richly symbolic 

1 W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites (1907), pp. 408 f. 

2 Cp. Montefiore, op, at. , pp. 334 f. 


meaning (9 lf- ). Jesus was both highpriest and victim, as he 
died and passed inside the heavenly Presence of God to 
establish the life-bond between God and his People. Jesus did 
not need to sacrifice for himself. Jesus did not need to sacrifice 
himself more than once for the People. Jesus secured a 
forgiveness which the older animal sacrifices never won. And 
Jesus did not l^ave his People outside ; he opened the way for 
them to enter God's own presence after him, and in virtue of his 
self-sacrifice. So the author, from time to time, works out the 
details of the symbolism. He even uses the treatment of the 
victim's remains to prove that Christians must be unworldly 
(i3 llf -) ; but this is an after-thought, for his fundamental interest 
lies in the sacrificial suggestiveness of the atonement-day which, 
external and imperfect as its ritual was, adumbrated the reality 
which had been manifested in the sacrifice and ascension of 

Yet this figurative category had its obvious drawbacks, two 
of which may be noted here. One (a) is, that it does not allow 
him to show how the sacrificial death of Jesus is connected with 
the inner renewal of the heart and the consequent access of 
man to God. He uses phrases like dyia£civ (see on 2 11 ) and 
KaOapiluv and tzXuovv (this term emphasizing more than the 
others the idea of completeness), but we can only deduce from 
occasional hints like 9 14 what he meant by the efficacy of the 
sacrificial death. His ritualistic category assumed that such a 
sacrifice availed to reinstate the People before God (cp. on 9 22 ), 
and this axiom sufficed for his Christian conviction that every- 
thing depended upon what Jesus is to God and to us — what he 
is, he is in virtue of what he did, of the sacrificial offering of 
himself. But the symbol or parable in the levitical cultus went 
no further. And it even tended to confuse the conception of 
what is symbolized, by its inadequacy ; it necessarily separated 
priest and victim, and it suggested by its series of actions a time- 
element which is out of keeping with the eternal order. Hence 
the literal tendency in the interpretation of the sacrifice has led 
to confusion, as attempts have been made to express the con- 
tinuous, timeless efficacy of the sacrifice. That the death was 
a sacrifice, complete and final, is assumed (e.g. 7 27 9 14 io 10 - 12 - 14 ). 
Yet language is used which has suggested that in the heavenly 
(TK-qvr] this sacrifice is continually presented or offered (e.g. 7 26 
and the vg. mistranslation of io 12 "hie autem unam pro peccatis 
offerens hostiam in sempiternum sedit"). The other drawback 
(b) is, that the idea of Jesus passing like the highpriest at once 
from the sacrifice into the inner sanctuary (i.e. through the 
heavens into the Presence, 4 14 ) has prevented him from making 
use of the Resurrection (cp. also on 13 12 ). The heavenly sphere 


of Jesus is so closely linked with his previous existence on earth, 
under the category of the sacrifice, that the author could not 
suggest an experience like the resurrection, which would not 
have tallied with this idea of continuity. 

On the other hand, the concentration of interest in the 
symbol on the sole personality of the priest and of the single 
sacrifice enabled him to voice what was his predominant belief 
about Jesus. How profoundly he was engrossed by the idea of 
Christ's adequacy as mediator may be judged from his avoidance 
of some current religious beliefs about intercession. Over and 
again he comes to a point where contemporary opinions (with 
which he was quite familiar) suggested, e.g., the intercession of 
angels in heaven, or of departed saints on behalf of men on 
earth, ideas like the merits of the fathers or the atoning efficacy 
of martyrdom in the past, to facilitate the approach of sinful 
men to God (cp. on n 40 i2 17 - 23 - 24 etc.). These he deliberately 
ignores. In view of the single, sufficient sacrifice of Jesus, in 
the light of his eternally valid intercession, no supplementary 
aid was required. It is not accidental that such beliefs are left 
out of our author's scheme of thought. It is a fresh proof of 
his genuinely primitive faith in Jesus as the one mediator. The 
ideas of the perfect Priest and the perfect Sacrifice are a theo- 
logical expression, in symbolic language, of what was vital to the 
classical piety of the early church ; and apart from Paul no 
one set this out so cogently and clearly as the writer of IIpos 


Our modern symbolism does no sort of justice to the ancient 
idea of priesthood. Matthew Arnold says of Wordsworth : 

"He was a priest to us all, 
Of the wonder and bloom of the world, 
Which we saw with his eyes, and were glad." 

That is, "priest" means interpreter, one who introduces us to a 
deeper vision, one who, as we might put it, opens up to us a 
new world of ideas. Such is not the ultimate function of Christ 
as Upcu's in our epistle. Dogmatic theology would prefer to 
call this the prophetic function of Christ, but the priestly office 
means mediation, not interpretation. The function of the high- 
priest is to enter and to offer : claepxecrdai and irpoacfrepeLv forming 
the complete action, and no distinction being drawn between the 
two, any more than between the terms " priest " and " high- 

The fundamental importance of this may be illustrated from 
the recourse made by Paul and by our author respectively to the 


Jeremianic oracle of the new covenant or BiaO^K-q. Paul's main 
interest in it lies in its prediction of the Spirit, as opposed to 
the Law. What appeals to Paul is the inward and direct intui- 
tion of God, which forms the burden of the oracle. But to our 
author (8 7-13 io 15 " 18 ) it is the last sentence of the oracle which 
is supreme, i.e. the remission of sins ; " I will be merciful to their 
iniquities, and remember their sins no more." He seizes the 
name and fact of a " new " covenant, as implying that the old 
was inadequate. But he continues : " If the blood of goats and 
bulls, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on defiled persons, 
give them a holiness that bears on bodily purity, how much more 
will the blood of Christ, who in the spirit of the eternal offered 
himself as an unblemished sacrifice to God, cleanse your con- 
science from dead works to serve a living God ? He mediates a 
new covenant for this reason, that those who have been called 
may obtain the eternal deliverance they have been promised, 
now that a death has occurred which redeems them from the 
transgressions involved in the first covenant " (9 13 ' 15 ). That is, 
the conclusion of Jeremiah's oracle — that God will forgive and 
forget — is the real reason why our author quotes it. There can 
be no access without an amnesty for the past ; the religious 
communion of the immediate future must be guaranteed by a 
sacrifice ratifying the pardon of God. 

This difference between Paul and our author is, of course, 
owing to the fact that for the latter the covenant x or law is sub- 
ordinated to the priesthood. Change the priesthood, says the 
writer, and ipso facto the law has to be changed too. The cove- 
nant is a relationship of God and men, arising out of grace, and 
inaugurated by some historic act ; since its efficiency as an insti- 
tution for forgiveness and fellowship depends on the personality 
and standing of the priesthood, the appearance of Jesus as the 
absolute Priest does away with the inferior law. 

This brings us to the heart of the Christology, the sacrifice 
and priestly service of Christ as the mediator of this new cove- 
nant with its eternal fellowship. 

Men are sons of God, and their relation of confidence and 
access is based upon the function of the Son kot* i£6xqv- The 
author shares with Paul the view that the Son is the Son before 
and during his incarnate life, and yet perhaps Son in a special 
sense in consequence of the resurrection — or rather, as our 
author would have preferred to say, in consequence of the ascen- 
sion. This may be the idea underneath the compressed clauses 
at the opening of the epistle (i 1 ' 5 ). "God has spoken to us by 

1 As Professor Kennedy points out, with real insight : "all the terms of 
the contrast which he works out are selected because of their relation to the 
covenant-conception" (p. 201). 


a Son — a Son whom he appointed heir of the universe, as it 
was by him that he had created the world. He, reflecting God's 
bright glory and stamped with God's own character, sustains the 
universe by his word of power ; when he had secured our 
purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the 
Majesty on high ; and thus he is superior to the angels, as he 
has inherited a Name superior to theirs. For to what angel did 
God ever say — 

*Thou art my Son, 
To-day have I become thy Father'?" 

(referring to the ancient notion that the king first became con- 
scious of his latent divine sonship at his accession to the throne). 
The name or dignity which Christ inherits, as the result of his 
redemptive work, is probably that of Son; as the following 
quotation from the OT psalm suggests, the resurrection or 
exaltation may mark, as it does for Paul, the fully operative 
sonship of Christ, the only way to inherit or possess the 
universe being to endure the suffering and death which purified 
human sin and led to the enthronement of Christ. Our author 
holds that this divine being was sent into the world because he 
was God's Son, and that he freely undertook his mission for 
God's other sons on earth. 

The mission was a will of God which involved sacrifice. 
That is the point of the quotation (io 5f -) from the 40th psalm 
— not to prove that obedience to God was better than sacrifice, 
but to bring out the truth that God's will required a higher kind 
of sacrifice than the levitical, namely, the personal, free self- 
sacrifice of Christ in the body. Even this is more than self- 
sacrifice in our modern sense of the term. It is " by this will," 
the writer argues, that "we are consecrated, because Jesus Christ 
once for all has offered up his body." No doubt the offering is 
eternal, it is not confined to the historical act on Calvary. " He 
has entered heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God 
on our behalf" (9 24 ) : "he is always living to make intercession 
for us " (7 25 ). Still, the author is more realistic in expression than 
the tradition of the Testament of Levi (3), which makes the 
angel of the Presence in the third heaven offer a spiritual and 
bloodless sacrifice to God in propitiation for the sins of ignorance 
committed by the righteous. Our author assigns entirely to Christ 
the intercessory functions which the piety of the later Judaism 
had already begun to divide among angels and departed saints, 
but he also makes the sacrifice of Jesus one of blood — a realism 
which was essential to his scheme of argument from the 
entrance of the OT high priest into the inner shrine. 

The superior or rather the absolute efficacy of the blood of 


Christ depends in turn on his absolute significance as the 
Son of God ; it is his person and work which render his self- 
sacrifice valid and supreme. But this is asserted rather than 
explained. Indeed, it is asserted on the ground of a presupposi- 
tion which was assumed as axiomatic, namely, the impossibility 
of communion with God apart from blood shed in sacrifice 
(9 22 ). For example, when the writer encourages his readers by 
reminding them of their position (12 24 ), that they "have come 
to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant and to the sprinkled 
blood whose message is nobler than Abel's," he does not mean 
to draw an antithesis between Abel's blood as a cry for vengeance 
and Christ's blood as a cry for intercession. The fundamental 
antithesis lies between exclusion and inclusion. Abel's blood 
demanded the excommunication of the sinner, as an outcast 
from God's presence ; Christ's blood draws the sinner near and 
ratifies the covenant. The author denies to the OT cultus of 
sacrifice any such atoning value, but at the same time he reaffirms 
its basal principle, that blood in sacrifice is essential to communion 
with the deity. Blood offered in sacrifice does possess a religious 
efficacy, to expiate and purify. Without shedding of blood there 
is no remission. We ask, why ? But the ancient world never 
dreamt of asking, why ? What puzzles a modern was an axiom 
to the ancient. The argument of our epistle is pivoted on this 
postulate, and no attempt is made to rationalize it. 

In the Law of Holiness, incorporated in Leviticus, there is 
indeed one incidental allusion to the rationale of sacrifice or 
blood-expiation, when, in prohibiting the use of blood as a food, 
the taboo proceeds: "the life of the body is in the blood, and 
I have given it to you for the altar to make propitiation for 
yourselves, for the blood makes propitiation by means of the 
life " {i.e. the life inherent in it). This is reflection on the 
meaning of sacrifice, but it does not carry us very far, for it only 
explains the piacular efficacy of blood by its mysterious potency 
of life. Semitic scholars warn us against finding in these words 
(Lv 17 11 ) either the popular idea of the substitution of the victim 
for the sinner, or even the theory that the essential thing in 
sacrifice is the offering of a life to God. As far as the Hebrew 
text goes, this may be correct. But the former idea soon became 
attached to the verse, as we see from the LXX — to yap aipa 
airov avrl tt}? i/^X'? 5 IftXAmtM. This view does not seem to be 
common in later Jewish thought, though it was corroborated by 
the expiatory value attached to the death of the martyrs (e.g. 
4 Mac *7 22 ). It is in this later world, however, rather than in 
the primitive world of Leviticus, that the atmosphere of the idea 
of IIpos 'E/?pai'ou9 is to be sought, the idea that because Jesus 
was what he was, his death has such an atoning significance as 


to inaugurate a new and final relation between God and men, 
the idea that his blood purifies the conscience because it is his 
blood, the blood of the sinless Christ, who is both the priest 
and the sacrifice. When the author writes that Christ " in the 
spirit of the eternal " (9 14 ) offered himself as an unblemished 
sacrifice to God, he has in mind the contrast between the annual 
sacrifice on the day of atonement and the sacrifice of Christ 
which never needed to be repeated, because it had been offered 
in the spirit and — as we might say — in the eternal order of 
things. It was a sacrifice bound up with his death in history, 
but it belonged essentially to the higher order of absolute reality. 
The writer breathed the Philonic atmosphere in which the 
eternal Now over-shadowed the things of space and time (see 
on i 6 ), but he knew this sacrifice had taken place on the cross, 
and his problem was one which never confronted Philo, the 
problem which we moderns have to face in the question : How 
can a single historical fact possess a timeless significance ? How 
can Christianity claim to be final, on the basis of a specific 
revelation in history ? Our author answered this problem in his 
own way for his own day. 


For him religion is specially fellowship with God on the 
basis of forgiveness. He never uses the ordinary term Koivwvia, 
however, in this sense. It is access to God on the part of 
worshippers that is central to his mind ; that is, he conceives 
religion as worship, as the approach of the human soul to the 
divine Presence, and Christianity is the religion which is religion 
since it mediates this access and thereby secures the immediate 
consciousness of God for man. Or, as he would prefer to say, 
the revelation of God in Jesus has won this right for man as it 
could not be won before. For, from the first, there has been a 
People of God seeking, and to a certain extent enjoying, this 
access. God has ever been revealing himself to them, so far as 
was possible. But now in Jesus the final revelation has come 
which supersedes all that went before in Israel. The writer 
never contemplates any other line of revelation ; outside Israel 
of old he never looks. It is enough for him that the worship of 
the OT implied a revelation which was meant to elicit faith, 
especially through the sacrificial cultus, and that the imperfec- 
tions of that revelation have now been disclosed and superseded 
by the revelation in Jesus the Son. Faith in this revelation is in 
one aspect belief (4 2f- ). Indeed he describes faith simply as the 
conviction of the unseen world, the assurance that God has 
spoken and that he will make his word good, if men rely upon 


it ; he who draws near to God must believe that he exists and 
that he does reward those who seek him (n 6 ). Faith of this 
noble kind, in spite of appearances to the contrary, has always 
characterized the People. Our author rejoices to trace it at 
work long before Jesus came, and he insists that it is the saving 
power still, a faith which in some aspects is indistinguishable 
from hope, since it inspires the soul to act and suffer in the 
conviction that God is real and sure to reward loyalty in the 
next world, if not in the present. Such faith characterized Jesus 
himself (2 13 12 2 ). It is belief in God as trustworthy, amid all 
the shows and changes of life, an inward conviction that, when 
he has spoken, the one thing for a man to do is to hold to 
that word and to obey it at all costs. This is the conception 
of faith in the early and the later sections of the writing (3 7f - 
io 38 -i2 2 ). The difference that Jesus has made — for the writer 
seems to realize that there is a difference between the primitive 
faith and the faith of those who are living after the revelation in 
Jesus — is this, that the assurance of faith has now become far 
more real than it was. Though even now believers have to 
await the full measure of their reward, though faith still is hope 
to some extent, yet the full realization of the fellowship with 
God which is the supreme object of faith has been now made 
through Jesus. In two ways, (i) For faith Jesus is the inspiring 
example ; he is the great Believer who has shown in his own 
life on earth the possibilities of faith. 1 In order to understand 
what faith is, we must look to Jesus above all, to see how faith 
begins and continues and ends. But (ii) Jesus has not only 
preceded us on the line of faith ; he has by his sacrifice made 
our access to God direct and real, as it never could be before. 
Hence the writer can say, " let us draw near with a full assurance 
of faith and a true heart, in absolute assurance of faith " since 
"we have a great Priest over the house of God." "We have 
confidence to enter the holy Presence in virtue of the blood of 
Jesus." He does not make Jesus the object of faith as Paul 
does, but he argues that only the sacrifice of Jesus opens the 
way into the presence of God for sinful men. 

This is the argument of the central part of the writing 
(chs. 7-10). Religion is worship, and worship implies sacrifice; 
there is no access for man to God without sacrifice, and no 

1 "It was by no divine magic, no mere 'breath, turn of eye, wave of 
hand,' that he 'joined issue with death,' but by the power of that genuinely 
human faith which had inspired others in the past" (MacNeill, p. 26). 
Bousset's denial of this (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1915, p. 431 f. : "man 
wird bei dem Jesus d. Hebraerbriefe so wenig wie bei dem paulinischen noch 
im strengen Sinne von einem subjectivem Glauben Jesu reden konnen") is as 
incomprehehsible as his desperate effort to explain He 5 7 " 10 from the fixed 
ideas of the mystery-religions. 


religion without a priest (see on 7 11 ). The relations between 
God and his People from the first l have been on the basis of 
sacrifice, as the bible shows, and the new revelation in Jesus 
simply changes the old sacrificial order with its priesthood for 
another. The writer starts from a profound sense of sin, as an 
interruption of fellowship between God and man. He thoroughly 
sympathizes with the instinct which underlay the ancient practice 
of sacrifice, that fellowship with God is not a matter of course, 
that God is accessible and yet difficult of access, and that human 
nature cannot find its way unaided into his presence. Thus he 
quotes the 40th psalm (see p. xli), not to prove that God's will 
is fellowship, and that to do the will of God is enough for man, 
apart from any sacrifice, but to illustrate the truth that the will 
of God does require a sacrifice, not simply the ethical obedience 
of man, but the self-sacrifice with which Jesus offered himself 
freely, the perfect victim and the perfect priest. All men now 
have to do is to avail themselves of his sacrifice in order to 
enjoy access to God in the fullest sense of the term. " Having 
a great Highpriest who has passed through the heavens, let us 
draw near." 

The conception of religion as devotion or worship covers a 
wide range in IIp6s 'E/?paious. It helps to explain, for example 
(see above, p. xxxviii), why the writer represents Jesus after death 
not as being raised from the dead, but as passing through the 
heavens into the inner Presence or sanctuary of God with the 
sacrifice of his blood (4 14 9 llf, )« It accounts for the elaboration 
of a detail like that of 9 s3 , and, what is much more important, it 
explains the "sacrificial" delineation of the Christian life. In 
this aXrjdtvr) aKrjv^ (8 2 ), of God's own making, with its dvo-taa- 
rripiov (13 10 ), Christians worship God (A-ai-pcveiv, 9 14 I2 28 "i3 10 ); 
their devotion to him is expressed by the faith and loyalty which 
detach them from this world (i3 13 - 14 )and enable them to live 
and move under the inspiration of the upper world ; indeed their 
ethical life of thanksgiving (see on 2 12 ) and beneficence is a 
sacrifice by which they honour and worship God (i3 15 - 16 ), a 
sacrifice presented to God by their dpxiepev's Jesus. The writer 
never suggests that the worship-regulations of the outworn cultus 
are to be reproduced in any rites of the church on earth ; he 
never dreamed of this, any more than of the ^yov/xcvoi being 
called " priests." The essence of priesthood, viz. the mediation 
of approach to God, had been absolutely fulfilled in Jesus, and 
in one sense all believers were enabled to follow him into the 
inner aKrjvrj, where they worshipped their God as the priests of 
old had done in their o-Kyvrj, and as the People of old had never 

1 i.e. from the inauguration of the 5ia0?j/o7 at Sinai, though he notes that 
even earlier there was sacrifice offered (n 3 ). 


been able to do except through the highpriest as their represen- 
tative and proxy. But, while the worship-idea is drawn out 
to describe Christians, in Upbs 'Efipaiovs its primary element 
is that of the eternal function of Christ as dpx«p«-us in the 
heavenly a-K-qv-fj. 


Symbolism alters as the ages pass. The picture-language in 
which one age expresses its mental or religious conceptions 
often ceases to be intelligible or attractive to later generations, 
because the civic, ritual, or economic conditions of life which had 
originally suggested it have disappeared or changed their form. 
This well-known principle applies especially to the language of 
religion, and it is one reason why some of the arguments in IIpos 
'Efipaiovs are so difficult for the modern mind to follow. There 
are other reasons, no doubt. The exegetical methods which the 
author took over from the Alexandrian school are not ours. 
Besides, historical criticism has rendered it hard for us moderns 
to appreciate the naive use of the OT which prevails in some 
sections of ILoos 'E/3/Wovs. But, above all, the sacrificial analogies 
are a stumbling-block, for we have nothing to correspond to what 
an ancient understood by a "priest" and sacrifice. Dryden was 
not poetic when he translated Vergil's " sacerdos " in the third 
Georgic (489) by " holy butcher," but the phrase had its truth. 
The business of a priest was often that of a butcher ; blood 
flowed, blood was splashed about. It was in terms of such 
beliefs and practices that the author of ILoos 'E/3pai'ous argued, 
rising above them to the spiritual conception of the self-sacrifice 
of Jesus, but nevertheless starting from them as axiomatic. The 
duty of the modern mind is to understand, in the first place, 
how he came by these notions ; and, in the second place, what 
he intended to convey by the use of such symbolic terms as 
" blood," " highpriest," and "sacrifice." 

The striking idea of Christ as the eternal dp^tepcv?, by whom 
the access of man to God is finally and fully assured, may have 
been a flash of inspiration, one of the notes of originality and 
insight which mark the writer's treatment and restatement of the 
faith. But originality is not depreciated by the effort to trace 
anticipations. What led him to this view? After all, the most 
brilliant flashes depend upon an atmosphere already prepared 
for them. They are struck out of something. In this case, it is 
not enough to say that the conception was merely the transfer- 
ence to Jesus of the Philonic predicates of the Logos, or the 
result of a bible-reading in the pentateuch. In the pentateuch 
the writer found proofs of what he brought to it, and the argu- 
ments in chs. 7-10 really buttress ideas built on other foundations. 


(a) Once the conception of a heavenly sanctuary became 
current, the notion of a heavenly dp^tepcvs would not be far-fetched 
for a writer like this. Philo had, indeed, not only spoken of the 
Logos as a highpriest, in a metaphorical sense, i.e. as mediating 
metaphysically and psychologically the relations between the 
worlds of thought and sense, but in an allegorical fashion spoken 
of " two temples belonging to God, one being the world in which 
the highpriest is his own Son, the Logos, the other being the 
rational soul " (de Somniis, i. 37). Our writer is much less 
abstract. Like the author of the Apocalypse (see on 4 16 ), he 
thinks of heaven in royal and ritual imagery as well as in civic, 
but it is the ritual symbolism which is more prominent. During 
the second century B.C. the ideas of a heavenly sanctuary and 
a heavenly altar became current in apocalyptic piety, partly owing 
to the idealistic and yet realistic conception (see on 8 5 ) that in 
heaven the true originals were preserved, the material altar and 
sanctuary being, like the earthly Jerusalem, inferior representations 
of transcendent realities. From this it was a natural develop- 
ment to work out the idea of a heavenly highpriest. By 
"natural" I do not mean to undervalue the poetical and re- 
ligious originality of the writer of IIpos 'E/8pcuovs. The author 
of the Apocalypse of John, for example, fails to reach this idea, 
and even in the enigmatic passage in the vision and confession of 
Levi (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Levi 5), where 
the seer tells us, " I saw the holy temple, and upon a throne of 
glory the Most High. And he said to me, Levi, I have given 
thee the blessings of priesthood until I come and sojourn in the 
midst of Israel" — even here, though the levitical priesthood, as 
in our epistle, is only a temporary substitute for the presence of 
God, the heavenly sanctuary has no highpriest. Nevertheless 
it was the idea of the heavenly sanctuary which held one 
germ of the idea of the heavenly highpriest for the author of 
IIpos 'E/3/Wovs, as he desired to express the fundamental signifi- 
cance of Jesus for his faith. 

(b) Another factor was the speculations of Philo about the 
Logos as highpriest (de Migrat. Abrah. 102, de Fug. 108 ff.), 
though the priestly mediation there is mainly between man and 
the upper world of ideas. The Logos or Reason is not only the 
means of creating the material cosmos after the pattern of the 
first and real world, but inherent in it, enabling human creatures 
to apprehend the invisible. This is Philo's primary use of the 
metaphor. It is philosophical rather than religious. Yet the 
increased prestige of the highpriest in the later Judaism prompted 
him to apply to the Logos functions which resemble intercession 
as well as interpretation. Vague as they are, they were familiar 
to the author of our epistle, and it is probable that they helped 


to fashion his expression of the eternal significance of Jesus as 
the mediator between man and God. The Logos as highpriest, 
says Philo (de Somn. ii. 28), for example, is not only apwuos, 
6A.d*c\?7po9, but /A€#opids tis 6(ov < *cai avdpuyirov > <£u<ris, tov ucv 
iXdrroiv, dvdpwirov 8e KpctTTtuv. Then he quotes the LXX of Lv 
16 17 . The original says that no man is to be with the highpriest 
when he enters the inner shrine, but the Greek version runs, orav 
elcrtrj ets to, dyia tu>v dytwv 6 op^icpcus, av6pu>Tro<; ovk carat, and Philo 
dwells on the literal, wrong sense of the last three words, as if 
they meant "the highpriest is not to be a man." "What will 
he be, if he is not a man ? God ? I would not say that (ovk 
av eiu-oi/u). . . . Nor yet is he man, but he touches both extremes 
(tKaTcpwv twv a.Kpo)v, <Ls av /Jacrccos xai K€<pa\fj<;, e<pa7n-duevos)." 
Later {ibid. 34) he remarks, "if at that time he is not a man, it 
is clear he is not God either, but a minister (Aen-oupyos 6eov) of 
God, belonging to creation in his mortal nature and to the 
uncreated world in his immortal nature." Similarly he pleads, 
in the de sacerdot. 12, that the function of the highpriest was to 
mediate between God and man, iva Sta pio-ov nvds avdpw-n-oi uev 
Wa.<TK(DVTai deov, 0t6s 0€ Tas ^apiTas avOpwirois iiroSiaKova) rtvl 
^pwuevos opiyr) kcu \oprjyo. Here we may feel vibrating a need of 
intercession, even although the idea is still somewhat theosophic. 
(c) A third basis for the conception of Christ's priesthood lay 
in the combination of messianic and sacerdotal functions which 
is reflected in the 110th psalm (see above, p. xxxiii), which in the 
Testaments of the Patriarchs (Reuben 6 8 ) is actually applied to 
Hyrcanus the Maccabean priest-king, while in the Test. Levi (18) 
functions which are messianic in all but name are ascribed to a 
new priest, with more spiritual insight than in the psalm itself. 
The curious thing, however, is that this Priest discharges no 
sacerdotal functions. The hymn describes his divine attestation 
and consecration — "and in his priesthood shall sin come to an 
end, and he shall open the gates of paradise and shall remove 
the threatening sword against Adam." That is all. Probably 
the passing phase of expectation, that a messiah would arise from 
the sacerdotal Maccabees, accounts for such a fusion of messiah 
and priest. In any case its influence was not wide. Still, the 
anticipation is not unimportant for the thought of Hpos 'E/?pou'ov9, 
which rests so much upon the mystical significance of that psalm. 
Paul had seen the fulfilment of Ps no 1 in the final triumph 
of Christ as messiah over his foes (1 Co 15 s4 - 25 8el yap avrbv 
/3acriXevtiv aYjsis ov 6rj 77-avTas tovs i\0pov<i i-rro tous 7ro'8as avroS). 
But meantime Christ was in living touch with his church on earth, 
and Paul can even speak, in a glowing outburst, of his effective 
intercession (Ro 8 84 os kcu ivrvyxdvet v-n-ep r)p.u>v). This is at 
least the idea of the highpriesthood of Christ, in almost every- 


thing except name, though Paul says as much of the Spirit (Ro 
8 2T Kara 6e6v cVrvy^dvet wep dyiW). Later, in the Fourth Gospel, 
a similar thought reappears ; Christ is represented in priestly 
metaphor as interceding for his People (i7 lf ), and the phrases 
( 1 7 17 - 19 ) about Jesus consecrating himself (as priest and victim) 
that thereby his disciples may be " consecrated " lv rrj aX-rjdda {i.e. 
in the sphere of Reality), indicate a use of ayid&iv which ex- 
presses one of the central ideas of II/>os 'Ef3patov<;. But in the 
latter writing the idea is explicit and elaborate, as it is nowhere 
else in the NT, and explicit on the basis of a later line in the 
noth psalm, which Paul ignored. Our author also knew and 
used the earlier couplet (io 13 ), but he draws his cardinal argu- 
ment from V. 4 (tv et lepcvs eis alwva Kara t?)i/ rd$iv McA^cre'Sex. 


There is a partial anticipation of all this in the Enochic 
conception of the Son of Man. No doubt, as Volz warns us 
{Judische Eschatologie, p. 90), we must not read too much into 
such apocalyptic phrases, since the Son of Man is an x quantity 
of personal value in the age of expected bliss and salvation. 
Still, the pre-existent messiah there is Son of Man as transcen- 
dent and in some sense as human ; he must be human, " Man," 
in order to help men, and he must be transcendent in order to 
be a deliverer or redeemer. But the author of IIpos 'Efipaiow;, 
like Paul, significantly avoids the term Son of Man, even in 2 5f -; 
and although he has these two ideas of human sympathy and of 
transcendency in close connexion, he derives them from his 
meditation upon the real Jesus ultimately, not from any apoca- 
lyptic speculations. What he meant by the term "Son of God" 
is not quite plain. Philo had regarded the Logos as pre- 
existent and as active in the history of the people, and so he 
regards Christ ; but while it seems clear (see on 5 5 ) that Christ 
is priest for him because he was already Son, the further ques- 
tions, when did he become priest? and how is the Sonship 
compatible with the earthly life? — these are problems which 
remain unsolved. The interpretation of the function of Jesus 
through the phrase in the 2nd psalm (see on i 5 ) hardly clears up 
the matter any more than in the case of Justin Martyr {Dial. 88). 
Later on, Hippolytus, or whoever wrote the homily appended 
(chs. xi.-xii.) to the Epist. Diognet., faced the problem more 
boldly and beautifully by arguing that " the Word was from 
the very beginning, appeared new, was proved to be old, and 
is ever young as he is born in the hearts of the saints. He 
is the eternal One, who to-day was accounted Son " (6 crrjfitpov 
vios \oyia6tis, 11 5 ). Here "to-day" refers to the Christian era; 


evidently the problem left by the author of IIpos 'Ef3pa.Lov<;, with 
his mystical, timeless use of the 2nd psalm, was now being felt 
as a theological difficulty. But this is no clue to how he himself 
took the reference. There is a large section in his thought upon 
Christ as the eternal, transcendental Son which remains obscure 
to us, and which perhaps was indefinite to himself. He took over 
the idea of the divine Sonship from the primitive church, seized 
upon it to interpret the sufferings and sacrificial function of Jesus 
as well as his eternal value, and linked it to the notion of the 
highpriesthood ; but he does not succeed in harmonizing its 
implications about the incarnate life with his special yvwo-is of 
the eternal Son within the higher sphere of divine realities. 

At the same time there seems no hiatus 1 between the meta- 
physical and the historical in the writer's conception of Jesus, no 
unreconciled dualism between the speculative reconstruction and 
the historical tradition. In ILoo? 'Efipaiow; we have the ordinary 
primitive starting-point, how could a divine, reigning Christ ever 
have become man ? The writer never hints that his readers 
would question this, for they were not tempted by any Jewish 
ideas. He uses the category of the Son quite frankly, in order 
to express the absolute value of the revelation in Jesus ; it is his 
sheer sense of the reality of the incarnate life which prompts him 
to employ the transcendental ideas. He does not start from a 
modern humanist view of Jesus, but from a conviction of his 
eternal divine character and function as Son and as apxiepevs, and 
his argument is that this position was only possible upon the 
human experience, that Jesus became man because he was Son 
(2 10f -), and is d/o^tepevs because once he was man. 

(a) For our author Jesus is the Son, before ever he became 
man, but there is no definite suggestion (see on 12 2 ) that he 
made a sacrifice in order to become incarnate, no suggestion 
that he showed his x^P 15 by entering our human lot (St' v/aSs 
e7TT(i))(ev(Tev irXovcrtos di', eauTov iKtvaicrcv iv 6/xoiw/i.aTt av6pwTr<i>v 
ycvo/x.€vos). Our author feels deeply the suffering of Jesus in the 
days of his flesh, but it is the final sacrifice at the end of his life 
which is emphasized. That he suffered as the eternal Son is 
understood : also, that it was voluntary (io 5f -), also that it was 
his human experience which qualified him to offer the perfect 
sacrifice, by God's x^P L<; - But, apart from the (2 8f> ) allusion to 
the temporary inferiority to angels, the writer does not touch the 
moving idea of the kenotic theories of the incarnation, viz. the 
"sense of sacrifice on the part of a pre-existent One." 2 

(i>) Since he knew nothing of the sombre view of the crapi 

1 As H. J. Holtzmann (Neulest. Theologie" 1 , ii. 337) and Pfleiderer (p. 287) 

2 H. R. Mackintosh, The Person of Christ, pp. 265 f. 


which pervaded the Pauline psychology, he found no difficulty 
in understanding how the sinless Jesus could share human flesh 
and blood. The sinlessness is assumed, not argued (cp. on 
4 16 5 7 ). Yet the writer does not simply transfer it as a dogmatic 
predicate of messiahship to Jesus. One of the characteristics 
which set IIpo? 'Efipaiovs apart in the early Christian literature is 
the idea that Jesus did not possess sinlessness simply as a pre- 
rogative of his divine Sonship or as a requisite for the validity 
of his priestly function. It was not a mere endowment. The idea 
rather is that he had to realize and maintain it bv a prolonged 
moral conflict iv reus ?/p.e'pais T7/s crapKos airov. This view goes 
back to direct historical tradition, with its deeply marked im- 
pression of the personality of Jesus, and no sort of justice is done 
to IIpos 'E/?pcuous if its conceptions of the human Son as sinless 
are referred to a theoretical interest or dogmatic prepossession. 
Such an interpretation is bound up with the view that IIpo9 
'Efipaiov; represents the more or less arbitrary fusion of an his- 
torical tradition about Jesus with a pre-Christian christology. 
But it is not enough to speak vaguely of materials for such a 
christology floating in pre-Christian Judaism and crystallizing 
round the person of Jesus, once Jesus was identified with the 
messiah. The crystallization was not fortuitous. What IIpos 
'E/3paunM; contains is a christology which implies features and 
characteristics in Jesus too definite to be explained away as 
picturesque deductions from messianic postulates or Philonic 
speculations. These undoubtedly enter into the statement of 
the christology, but the motives and interests of that christology 
lie everywhere. The writer's starting-point is not to be sought 
in some semi-metaphysical idea like that of the eternal Son as a 
supernatural being who dipped into humanity for a brief interval 
in order to rise once more and resume his celestial glory ; the 
mere fact that the eschatology is retained, though it does not 
always accord with the writer's characteristic view of Christ, shows 
that he was working from a primitive historical tradition about 
Jesus (see above, pp. xlivf.). To this may be added the fact 
that he avoids the Hellenistic term o-am;p, a term which had been 
associated with the notion of the appearance of a deity hitherto 
hidden. 1 The allusions to the historical Jesus are not numerous, 
but they are too detailed and direct to be explained away ; he 
preached crwT^pta, the message of eschatological bliss ; he be- 
longed to the tribe of Judah ; he was sorely tempted, badly 

1 He does not use the technical language of the mystery-religions (cp. on 
6 4 ), and they cannot be shown to have been present continuously to his mind. 
If the argument from silence holds here, he probably felt for them the same 
aversion as the devout Philo felt {de Sacrif. 12), though Philo on occasion 
would employ their terminology for his own purposes. 


treated, and finally crucified outside Jerusalem. These are the 
main outward traits. But they are bound up with an inter- 
pretation of the meaning of Jesus which is not a mere deduction 
from messianic mythology or OT prophecies, and it is unreal, in 
view of a passage like 5"^, e.g., to imagine that the writer was 
doing little more than painting in a human face among the 
messianic speculations about a divine Son. 

(c) Neither is the sinlessness of Jesus connected with the 
circumstances of his human origin. No explanation at all is 
offered of how this pre-existent Son entered the world of men. 
It is assumed that he did not come out of humanity but that he 
came into it ; yet, like Paul and the author of the Fourth Gospel 
(i 9f ), our author is not interested in questions about the human 
birth. Even when he describes the prototype Melchizedek as 
" without father and mother " (7 s ), he is not suggesting any 
parallel to the Christ ; the phrase is no more than a fanciful 
deduction from the wording or rather the silence of the legend, 
just as the original priest-king Gudea says to the goddess in the 
Sumerian tale, " I have no mother, thou art my mother ; I have 
no father, thou art my father." It is impossible to place this 
allusion beside the happy misquotation in io 5 "a body thou 
hast prepared for me," and to argue, as Pfleiderer (p. 287) does, 
that the incarnation is conceived as purely supernatural. All we 
need to do is to recall the Alexandrian belief, voiced in a passage 
like Wisd 8 19 (" I was the child of fine parts : to my lot there 
fell a good soul, or rather being good I entered a body un- 
defiled ") ; the good soul is what we call the personality, the 
thinking self, to which God allots a body, and birth, in the ordinary 
human way, is not incompatible with the pre-existence of the 
soul or self which, prior to birih, is in the keeping of God. The 
author of ILoos 'Eftpaiov; could quite well think of the incarna- 
tion of Jesus along such lines, even although for him the pre- 
existent Christ meant much more than the pre-existent human 

The meaning of the incarnation is, in one aspect, to yield a 
perfect example of faith (i2 2f -) in action ; in another and, for the 
writer, a deeper, to prepare Jesus, by sympathy and suffering, for 
his sacrificial function on behalf of the People. The rationale 
of his death is that it is inexplicable except upon the fact of his 
relationship to men as their representative and priest before 
God (2 ut ). From some passages like 5 3t 7 27 , it has been in- 
ferred that Jesus had to offer a sacrifice on his own behalf as 
well as on behalf of men (i.e. his tears and cries in Gethsemane), 
or that he only overcame his sinful nature when he was raised 
to heaven. But this is to read into the letter of the argument 
more than the writer ever intended it to convey. The point of 


his daring argument is that the sufferings of Jesus were not 
incompatible with his sinlessness, and at the same time that they 
rendered his sacrifice of himself absolutely efficacious. The 
writer is evidently in line with the primitive synoptic tradition, 
though he never proves the necessity of the sufferings from OT 
prophecy, as even his contemporary Peter does, preferring, with 
a fine intuition in the form of a religious reflection, to employ 
the idea of moral congruity (2 10 ). 


The symbolism of the highpriesthood and sacrifice of Jesus 
in the heavenly sanctuary is therefore designed to convey the 
truth that the relations of men with God are based finally upon 
Jesus Christ. In the unseen world which is conceived in this 
naive idealistic way, Jesus is central ; through him God is known 
and accessible to man, and through him man enjoys forgiveness 
and fellowship with God. When Paul once wrote, to. avw 
(j>poi'€LT€, to, ano ^TctTe, if he had stopped there he would have 
been saying no more than Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius might 
have said and did say. But when he added, ov 6 Xpio-rds iariv 
(iv Se^ta toB 6eov Ka0-qfj.cvo<;), he defined the upper sphere in a 
new sense. So with the author of ITpos 'Efipaiovs. In the real 
world of higher things, "everything is dominated by the figure 
of the great High Priest at the right hand of the Majesty in the 
Heavens, clothed in our nature, compassionate to our infirmities, 
able to save to the uttermost, sending timely succour to those 
who are in peril, pleading our cause. It is this which faith 
sees, this to which faith clings as the divine reality behind and 
beyond all that passes, all that tries, daunts, or discourages the 
soul : it is this in which it finds the ens realissimum, the very 
truth of things, all that is meant by God." 1 

Yet while this is the central theme (chs. 7-10), which the 
writer feels it is essential for his friends to grasp if they are to 
maintain their position, it is one proof of the primitive character 
of IIpos 'Efipaiovs that it preserves traces of other and more 
popular ideas of Christianity. Thus (a) there is the primitive 
idea of the messiah as the heir, who at the resurrection inherits 
full power as the divine Son or KA^povd/ios. Strictly speaking, 
this does not harmonize with the conception of the Son as 
eternal, but it reappears now and then, thrown up from the 
eschatological tradition which the author retains (see above, 
pp. xxxiii f.). (b) The isolated reference to the overthrow of 
the devil is another allusion to ideas which were in the back- 
ground of the writer's mind (see on 2 14 - 15 ). (<r) The scanty 
1 Denney, The Death of Christ, pp. 239, 240. 


use made of the favourite conception of Jesus as the divine 
Kt'ptos (see below, p. lxiii) is also remarkable. This is not one of 
the writer's categories ; the elements of divine authority and 
of a relation between the Kvpios and the divine Community 
are expressed otherwise, in the idea of the Highpriest and the 

Furthermore the category of the Highpriesthood itself was 
not large enough for the writer's full message, (a) It could not 
be fitted in with his eschatology any more than the idea of the 
two worlds could be. The latter is dovetailed into his scheme 
by the idea of faith as practically equivalent to hope (in io 35f -); 
the world to come actually enters our experience here and now, 
but the full realization is reserved for the end, and meantime 
Christians must wait, holding fast to the revelation of God in 
the present. The former could not be adjusted to the eschat- 
ology, and the result is that when the writer passes to speak in 
terms of the primitive expectation of the end (io 35 -i2 29 ), he 
allows the idea of the Highpriesthood to fall into the back- 
ground. In any case the return of Jesus is connected only 
with the deliverance of his own People (9 28 ). He does not 
come to judge; that is a function reserved for God. The 
end is heralded by a cataclysm which is to shake the whole 
universe, heaven as well as earth (i nf - i2 26f -), another conception 
which, however impressive, by no means harmonizes with the 
idea of the two spheres. But the writer's intense consciousness of 
living in the last days proved too strong for his speculative theory 
of the eternal and the material orders, (b) Again, the High- 
priesthood was inadequate to the ethical conceptions of the 
writer. It did involve ethical ideas — the cleansing of the con- 
science and the prompting of devotion and awe, moral con- 
secration, and inward purity (these being the real " worship ") ; 
but when he desires to inspire his readers he instinctively turns 
to the vivid conception of Jesus as the apx^yo's, as the pioneer 
and supreme example of faith on earth. 

The latter aspect brings out the idea of a contemplation 
of Jesus Christ, a vision of his reality (cp. 3 1 I2 1 - 2 ), which, 
when correlated with the idea of a participation in the higher 
world of reality, as embodied in the Highpriest aspect, raises 
the question, how far is it legitimate to speak of the writer as 
mystical ? 


To claim or to deny that he was a mystic is, after all, a 
question of words. He is devoid of the faith-mysticism which 
characterizes Paul. Even when he speaks once of believers being 
/u-e'rox ' X/dio-tov (3 14 ), he means no more than their membership 


in the household of God over which Christ presides ; there is no 
hint of the personal trust in Christ which distinguishes "faith" 
in Paul. As important is the consideration that the writer does 
not take the sacrifices of the levitical cultus as merely symbolizing 
union with God. Such is the genuinely mystical interpretation. 
To him, on the other hand, sacrifice is an action which bears 
upon man's relation to God, and it is from this point of view 
that he estimates and criticizes the levitical cultus. But while 
technically he is not a mystic, even in the sense in which that 
much-abused term may be applied to any NT writer, he has 
notes and qualities which might be called " mystical." To call 
him an "idealist" is the only alternative, and this is misleading, 
for idealism suggests a philosophical detachment which is not suit- 
able to IIpos 'Efipaiovs. On the other hand, his profound sense 
of the eternal realities, his view of religion as inspired by the 
unseen powers of God, his conception of fellowship with God as 
based on the eternal presence of Jesus in heaven — these and 
other elements in his mind mark him as a definitely unworldly 
spirit, impatient of any sensuous medium, even of a sacrificial 
meal, that would interpose between the human soul and God. 
Not that he uses any pantheistic language ; he is more careful 
to avoid this than a writer like the author of First John. His 
deep moral nature conceives of God as a transcendent Majestic 
Being, before whom believers must feel awe and reverence, even 
as they rejoice and are thankful. He has a wholesome sense of 
God's authority, and an instinctive aversion to anything like a 
sentimental, presumptuous piety (see above, pp. xxxvf.). Yet 
as he speaks of the Rest or the City of God, as he describes the 
eternal Sanctuary, or the unshaken order of things, or as he 
delineates the present position of God's People here in their 
constant dependence on the unseen relation between Christ and 
God, he almost tempts us to call him " mystical," if " mysticism " 
could be restricted to the idea that the human soul may be 
united to Absolute Reality or God. He is certainly not 
mystical as Philo is ; x there is no hint in TJpos *E/3paiovs, for 
example, of an individualistic, occasional rapture, in which the 
soul soars above sense and thought into the empyrean of the 
unconditioned. He remains in close touch with moral realities 
and the historical tradition. But the spirituality of his outlook, 
with its speculative reach and its steady openness to influences 
pouring from the unseen realities, hardly deserves to be de- 
nied the name of " mystical," simply because it is neither wistful 
nor emotional. 

1 The soundest account of Philo's "mysticism" is by Professor H. A. A. 
Kennedy in Philo's Contribution to Religion, p. 2 1 1 f. 


§ 3. Style and Diction. 


Hpos 'Efipaiovs is distinguished, among the prose works of 
the primitive church, by its rhythmical cadences. The writer 
was acquainted with the oratorical rhythms which were popular- 
ized by Isokrates, and although he uses them freely, when he 
uses them at all, his periods show traces of this rhetorical 
method. According to Aristotle's rules upon the use of paeans 
in prose rhythm (Rhet. iii. 8. 6-7), the opening ought to be 
- w w w, while v w v - should be reserved for the conclusion. 

Our author, however, begins with 7roAupepa)s, an introductory 
rhythm (cp. i 5 3 12 ) which seems to be rather a favourite with 

v/ <*/ ^/ 

him, e.g. 3 1 o6ev aSo\<£, 7 10 ert yap ev rrj, I2 25 /3Ae7T€T€ p^, 13 20 

o Se 0«os, though he varies it with an anapaest and an iambus 
w w - w - {e.g. 2 1 - 4 - 5 - 14 11 16 Sto ovk eVcuo-x, 1 2 12 etc.), or — „ — 

(as in 5 12 6 4 7 7 , see below, 13 5 avTos yap dprjK, etc.), or 

(as in 2 3 3 5 n 6 Trio-revo-at yap Set, n 39 etc.), or even occasionally 

with three trochees - w - w - ^ (^ 12 8 ), or- v (12 11 13 13 

etc.), or -ww^ — (*.£. i 13 4 12 ), or even two anapaests (e.g. i 6 

5 n J 3 l0 )> or ~ - ( x 3 3 )- He also likes to carry on or even 

to begin a new sentence or paragraph with the same or a similar 

rhythm as in the end of the preceding, e.g. - W ww — w in 

4 11 and 4 12 , or _ w ^ — ^ — ^ in 7 21 and 7 22 , or as in 8 13 

(--w -www--w --www--) and 9 1 

( — _ ^ — ^w^--^w^ — w -), or — ^ ^ ^ - as in io 10 

and io 11 , and to repeat a rhythm twice in succession, as, e.g., 

— ^ w in 2 3 (Tt]\iKavrr]<; a . . . r/ns apx^v Aa )> ^ ^ m 

4 1U (o yap etcreAc'OJV cis tt;v . . . a7ro Tun' epywv avrov), OV — w - ^ 

in 12 1 (roiyapovv kou ^pcis tt;\ikovt' I^ovtcs). The standard 
closing rhythm w w v. - does not clearly occur till 11 s (yeyoveVai), 
11 4 (en XaAel), 1 1 23 (/JacrtXews), and 12 24 ; it is not so frequent as, 

g m g mi M w _- ( 7 2 8- 29 9 26 IQ 34. 35 „18. 15. 28 I2 3 g^ He a ] s0 \fe es 

to close with a single or an echoing rhythm like w — w in i 3 

((Tvvryi iv v\J/r)\(H<;), 2 10 (dr wv TcAeiworai), 2 18 (triirovOe ireipaaOtis 

. . . peWs fio7)6r}o-ai), or w- in 7 19 9 28 (6cj)dr)(r€Tai . . . 

(TOiTrjpiav), II 4 (i<ev tw 6eoJ . . . avrov tov 6eov), II 21 etc. A 

curious variety in almost parallel clauses occurs in n 1 

€<TTIV $€ 7Ti<TTtS cA7ri^O/X€VO)l/ V7TOOTCUriS 

7rpayfjLaT(DV cAey^os ou /3A€7ro/x€vo>v, 


where the cross cadences are plain, as in Isokrates often. But 
at the end of sentences, as a rule, he prefers w w w - w (Trapa- 

pvufiev, 2 1 8 6 ), or - w -* (77s AaAov/tey, 2 5 7 6 - 7 etc.) or - w 

(&>v TcXetwo-at, 2 10 2 18 3 14 4 3 - n n2i etc.), sometimes the weighty 

(2 17 8 2 io 39 11 9 11" etc.), or w - w -( 4 i 58. u io 2. is. 27 

11 8 ) now and then, or one or even two (5 11 ) anapaests, often 
ending on a short syllable. 

He is true to the ancient principle of Isokrates, however, that 
prose should be mingled with rhythms of all sorts, especially 
iambic and trochaic, and there even happen to be two trimeters 
in 12 14 , besides the similar rhythm in i2 13 - 26 . Also he secures 
smoothness often by avoiding the practice of making a word 
which begins with a vowel follow a word which ends with a 
vowel (Sel to. <f>wijevTa. pr) avfXTriTrreiv). Parallelisms in sound, 
sense, and form are not infrequent. These axw* 1 ™ °f Isokrates 
can be traced, e.g., in i 2 - 3 where, by dnrtfoo-is, ov . . . -n-dvTwv 
answers to bs . . . vTroo-rdo-cws avrov, as 8Y ov . . . cVot'^crcv to 
(jiipuv . . . 8wd/Li€ws avrov, or as in n 1 , which is, however, a 
case of Trapto-tixris or parallelism in form. As in Wisdom, the 
accumulation of short syllables, a characteristic of the later 

prose, is frequent in IIpos 'EfipaLow; (e.g. in 2 1, 2 7tot€ irapapv 

W \m* V W S^ W 

Aoyos cyeve-ro /3e/?aio?, 6 9 - 10 Kai 6^0/xeva . . . ov yap aSixos o 0cos), 

io 25 n 12 - 19 i2 8 - 9 13 4 etc.). At the same time, IIpos 'E/?paiovs 
is not written in parallel rhythm, like Wisdom (cp. Thackeray's 
study in Journal of Theological Studies, vi. pp. 232 f.) ; it is 
a prose work, and, besides, we do not expect the same 
opportunities for using even prose-rhythms in the theological 
centre of the writing, though in the opening chapters and 
towards the close, the writer has freer play. One or two samples 
may be cited, e.g., in the two parallel clauses of i 2 : 

ov eQrjKev nX-qpovopov iravTUiV 
•^ \^ w ~~ "— \^ 

01 ov Kai iTTOirjacv tovs aitoias, 

or in i 3 where ao-ews avrov answers to a/xeus avrov. In 2 16 the 

two clauses begin with and end with eTn\ap.fiaveTai, the 

verb being obviously repeated to bring out the anapaestic 
rhythm. The " cretic " (- ^ -), which is particularly frequent, 
is seen clearly in a carefully wrought passage like 4 8 " 10 : 

ci yap avrovs I^crous KaTcnavaev 


ovk av 7repi a\\r)<; fiera. raur(a) T^/xcpas 

ap(a) a.7roAei7rcTai o"a/3/3aTtcr^tos tu Aaa> tov #cov 

o yap eicrcA#a>v ci? T77V /<aTa7raucriv airrov 

Kat airro? KaTC7rav(rcv 

a7ro twv cpywv aurou 

uxnrep airo to>v iSitov o 0eo?. 

There is a repeated attempt at balance, e.g. of clauses, like 
(n 33 ): 

rjpyaaavTo 8i.Ka.iocrvvr)v 

€tt(tv)(Ov crrayycAiwv, 
where both have the same number of syllables and end on the 

same rhythm ; or, in the next verse, where Suva/uv 7rvpos is 

echoed in ccpvyov oro/xa, while there is a similar harmony of sound 
in the closing syllables of 


^ >-• ^» — 

wav aWoTpia)v, 

and in vv. 37 and 38 the balancing is obvious in 

tv <j>ovvi p.a^aLprj^ 
irtpLrjXOov cv 


cv cp7//xiai? 
or in the chiming of 38 and 39 : 

Kai <nry]\aioi'i Kat toi? o7rais rr]<; y??s 
Kat ovtol 7ravTC? fiapTvprjOti'Tts 8. 


As for the bearing of this rhythmical structure on the text, it 
does not affect the main passages in question {e.g. 2 9 6 2 ) ; it 
rather supports and indeed may explain the omission of tw before 
viw in i 1 , and of oAw in 2 2 , as well as the right of /u.cAAoVtwv to 
stand in 9 11 and in io 1 ; it might favour, however, ayyl\a>v ycvd- 
/u,€vos instead of yev6p.evo<; twv dyye'Awv in i 4 , and the insertion of 
rj vTupa. in 1 i u and of 6pu in 12 18 , if it were pressed ; while, on the 
other hand, as employed by Blass, it buttresses the wrong insertion 
of fj.lxP c tc'Aous fieftaiav in 3 s , and inferior readings like o-vyK€Kepao-- 
fxtvowz and a.Kova-$a.(TLv in 4 2 , i.K^i.^pp.ivoi^ (D*) in 9 28 , el in 12", iv 
XoXrj in i2 15 ,and dvix^dai in 13 22 . But the writer is not shackled 
to a-TLxoi, though his mind evidently was familiar with the rhythms 
in question. 


There are traces of vernacular Greek, but the language and 
style are idiomatic on the whole. Thus the perfect is sometimes 
employed for the sake of literary variety, to relieve a line of aorists 
(e.g. n 17 - 28 ), and indeed is often used aoristically, without any 
subtle intention (cp. on 7 6 etc.); it is pedantic to press signifi- 
cance into the tenses, without carefully watching the contemporary 
Hellenistic usage. The definite article is sparingly employed. 
MeV . . . Se, on the other hand, is more common, as we might 
expect from the antithetical predilections of the author in his 
dialectic. As for the prepositions, the avoidance of crvv is re- 
markable (cp. on 12 14 ), all the more remarkable since our author 
is fond of verbs compounded with avv. Oratorical imperatives 
are used with effect (e.g. 3 1 - 12 7* io 32 etc.), also double (i 5 i 13 -n 
12 5 ' 7 ) and even triple (3 16 ' 18 ) dramatic questions, as well as single 
ones (2 s - 4 7 11 o 13 - 14 io 29 n 32 12 9 ). The style is persuasive, 
neither diffuse nor concise. The writer shows real skill in man- 
aging his transitions, suggesting an idea before he develops it (e.g. 
in 2 17 5 6 ). He also employs artistically parentheses and asides, 
sometimes of considerable length (e.g. /ca0w? . . . KaTdVavcriv 
fj.ov 3 7 - 11 5 13 - 14 8 5 ii 13-16 ), now and then slightly irrelevant (e.g. 3 4 ), 
but occasionally, as in Plato, of real weight (e.g. 2 16 7 12 ; oi&ev 
. . . vofjios 7 iy 10 , 7rio"ros yap o tTrayyeiAayacvos 10" ; wv ovk ijv 
a£ios 6 koct/aos ii 38 13 14 ) j they frequently explain a phrase (tovt 
(.(ttlv tov 8id/3o\ov 2 14 y tovt €<ttiv Tot's aSe\<pov<; avTwi' 7 5 ; 6 Aaos 
yap £7r avTrjs vevop,o6eT7)Tat 7 11 ; t^tis . . . Zveo-TrjKOTa o. 9 ; tovt ilo~tiv 
. . . KTtcrews 9 11 ; tovt ccttiv t^s crap»cos aiioi! io 20 12 20 ), especially 
an OT citation (e.g. 4 10 6 13 7 2, 7 ; amves /tara vo/iov irpoo-cpepovTai io 8 ) 
on which the writer comments in passing. One outstanding feature 
of the style (for IIpos 'EySpaious is Ae'£i?'vr), not At'£is 
elpopevr) in the sense of rapid dialogue) is the number of long, 
carefully constructed sentences (e.g. i 1-4 2 2 " 4 2 14 - 15 3 12 ' 16 4 12 - 18 , 


cl-3 r7-10 54-6 gl6-20 «l-3 g4-6 g2-5 g6-10 q24-26 io 11-13 io 19-25 j j 24-26 I2 l-2 

i2 18 ' 24 ). Yet his short sentences are most effective, e.g. 2 18 4 s io 18 , 
and once at least (3 16 " 18 ) there is a touch of the rapid, staccato 
diatribe style, which lent itself to the needs of popular preach- 
ing. He loves a play on words or assonance, e.g. KapBia Trovrjpa 

a7rio"n'a<; ev tu aTroa-rrjvai (3 12 ), TrapaKaXeLTC tavTOUS . . . d^pis 
ov to o~r)p.€pov KaXciTai (3 13 ), ep.a6ev acp' £>v ZiraOtv (5 s ), xaXov t( 
ko.1 kolkov (5 14 ), aira£ Trpoo-eve^Oets eis to 7toXXwv aveveyKelv dpapTias 
(9 28 )> toctovtov t^ovTcs TrcpiKCiuevov r)plv vecpos p.apTvpwv . . . Tpe^co- 
p.ev tov TrpoK€Lp.€vov rjpxv dydva (I2 1 ), ii<XeXr)o~6e tJJs TrapaKXrjo~eu><i 
. . . fxr/Sk ixXvov (12 5 ), p-evovo-av 7roA.1v aXXa tt/v peAAoucrav (13 14 ). 
Also he occasionally likes to use a term in two senses, e.g. £wv 
yap 6 Xdyos tov Oeov . . . 7rpos ov rjplv 6 Xdyos (4 12, 13 ), and BiaOrjKrj 
in 9 15f - From first to last he is addicted to the gentle practice of 
alliteration, e.g. iroXvp.epw<; ko.1 7roAuTpd7rws irdXai 6 #€os XaXrjo-a<; 
tois TraTpaaiv cv tois Trpo(prJTai<; (l 1 )) Tracra 7rapd/3acris <cai TrapaKor) 
(2 2 ), acprJKev auTui avviroTaKTov (2 s ), tov d7rdo-ToA.ov xai dpY/epe'a (3 1 ), 
KatTOL . . . a.7ro KaTaf3oXr)s KOcrp.ov (4 3 ), lvdvp.r)cre.tov koX evvoiwv (4 12 ), 
airaTtop, ap-r/Tiop, ayeveaXoyr/Tos (7 s ), o\d to avTr}<; do"#ev€S kcu dvw- 
(peXes (7 18 ), eis to 7ra.vTeA.ts . . . tous 7rpoo-epxope'vous . . . 7rdvT0Te 
£wv (7 25 ), 01 K£KXrjfj.€voi tt}s aiwviov KXrjpovop.ia<; (9 15 ), tlcrrjXdiV dyia 
Xpio~TO<> avTLTVTra twv aXrjOiviov, aXX eis aurdv (9 s4 ), eVei e'Sei avTov 
TToXXaKLS TraOelv airo Kara/JoA^s Kocrp.ov (9 26 ), a7ra£ £7ri crwTcAeta twv 
aliovwv eis a0€Trjo-iv Trjs dpapTias (9 2t5 ), d7TOK€iTat Tots dv0pa>7rois a7ra£ 
aTro^aveiv (9 27 ), ev auTais dvdpvTicas dpapriaiv (to 3 ), dSvvaTov yap 
afpa Tavpcov Kai Tpdyiov acpaipeiv dpapTias (io 4 ), OXixpecnv 0eaTpi£o- 
pevoi (io 33 ), ei pev eK€Lvrj<; ip.vrjp,6v€VOV acf> t;s i£e/3r]o~av (il 15 ), Tracra 
pev 7rai8eia 7rpos p.ev to 7rapdv (12 11 ), 7repio-o"OTe'pws Se TrapaKaXd tovto 

TTotrjcraL (13 19 ). On the other hand, he seems deliberately to 
avoid alliteration once by altering 8u0ep.rjv into eVoiiio-a (8 9 ). 

One or two other features of his style are remarkable. There 
is, for example, the predilection for sonorous compounds like 
pLio-OaTroSocria and €U7rcpto-TaTos, and also the love of adjectives in a 
privative, which Aristotle noted as a mark of the elevated style 
(Rhet. iii. 6. 7); in IIp6s 'E^patovs there are no fewer than 
twenty-four such, while even in the historical romance miscalled 
3 Mac. there are no more than twenty. Other items are the 
fondness for nouns ending in -is (cp. on 2 4 ), the extensive use of 
periphrases (cp. on 4 11 ), and of the infinitive and the preposition 
(see on 3 12 ). The use of a word like T€ is also noticeable. 
Apart from eleven occurrences of tc kou, and one doubtful case 
of re . . . tc . . . xai (6 2 ), tc links (a) substantives without any 
preceding k<u or Se'; (i>) principal clauses, as in 12 2 ; and (c) par- 
ticipial clauses, as in i 3 6 4 . Emphasis is generally brought out 
by throwing a word forward or to the very end of the sentence, 


The writer is also in the habit of interposing several words 
between the article or pronoun and the substantive ; e.g. 

I 4 8ia<f)opii)7 epov Trap' avrovs K(K\r)puv6fxr]K€v oro/xa. 

4 8 ovk av Trepi czAAt/s eA.aA.ei perd ravra 17/i.e'pas. 

10 11 Tas auras 7roAAd;as 7rpoo~(f>4pu)i' Ovaias. 

10 12 p.iav VTYip dp-apTiCov irpoo-eveyKas dva-iav. 

IO 27 TTvpb<; £77X05 icrOUiv p.e'AAovTOS tovs VTrtvavTiovs. 
I2 3 tov TOLavTrjv V7rop.evevr/KOTa wo Tajy d/xapTwXwv ets ai'TOV 

Further, his use of the genitive absolute is to be noted, e.g., 
in — 

2 4 <TVV€Trip.apTVpOVVTOS TOV $€OV kt\. 

4 1 KaraXeLTrofi.evrj<i . . . avrov (seven words between p.rj xroTe 
and 8oKrj ns). 

4 8 KatVot Taiy ipyoyv . . . yevrjdevTUiV. 
7 12 /xeTaTi^e/AeVris yap tt}s lepwo-w^s. 

8 4 OVT(t)V TU)C TTpO(T(pep6vT(DV KCLTO. VOp,OV TO. Owpa. 

9 6 toutwv oe oirrco Ka.TajKtvao-p.£i'<i>v. 

9 8 toSto c)TiAoi3vTos tov IIvei;p;aTos toC 'Ayiov . . . en tt}s 

vpiiiTrjS dKy}vrj<i e'^ouV^s o"Tdo-iv. 
9 15 0ai aVou yevofievov . . . 7rapa/3do-eu)v (ten words between 

o7Tu>s and t. e. Xafiwo-iv). 
9 19 AaAr/^eicnis yap irdo'-qs evroAr;? . . . Mwuce'cos. 
IO 26 €kovo"io)S yap dp.apTay ovtwv rjfxwv. 
II 4 p.apTvpovvTO<i ex! tois Soopois auToi) tou 0eov. 

Finally, there is an obvious endeavour to avoid harsh hiatus, 
sometimes by the choice of a term (e.g. Sid™ for on, as in 
Polybius and Theophrastus, or axpis for a^pi, or ws for on), and 
a distinct fondness for compound verbs; Moulton (ii. 11), 
reckoning by the pages of WH, finds that while Mark has 57 
compound verbs per page, Acts 6-25, Hebrews has 80, and Paul 
only 3"8. 

His vocabulary is drawn from a wide range of reading. 
Whether he was a Jew by birth or not, he goes far beyond the 
LXX. His Greek recalls that of authors like Musonius Rufus 
and the philosophical Greek writers, and he affects more or less 
technical philosophical terms like aio-^rr/piov, S^pioupyos, OeXrjais, 
p.eTpio7ra0eiv, TtAeiow, Te'Aos, Tifnopia, and wroSeiyp.a. He was 
acquainted with the books of the Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and 
perhaps even Philo. This last affinity is strongly marked. The 
more he differs from Philo in his speculative interpretation of 
religion, the more I feel, after a prolonged study of Philo, that 
our author had probably read some of his works ; it is not easy 


to avoid the conclusion that his acquaintance with the Hellenistic 
Judaism of Alexandria included an acquaintance with Philo's 
writings. However this may be, the terminology of the Wisdom 
literature was as familiar to this early Christian SiSacn«z\os as to 
the author of James. 1 

As for the LXX, the text he used — and he uses it with some 
freedom in quotations — must have resembled that of A (cp. 
Buchel in Studien und Kritiken, 1906, pp. 508-591), upon the 
whole. It is to his acquaintance with the LXX that occasional 
" Semitisms " in his style may be referred, e.g. the e7r icrxarov of 
I 1 , the Kap&a a7n.0-Tias of 3 12 , the Iv ra XiyeaOai of 3 15 , the Opovos 
Trjs x«p""os of 4 16 , and the phrases in 5 7 g 5 and 12 15 . But this is a 
minor point. We note rather that (a) he sometimes uses LXX 
terms (e.g. Suvapeis) in a special Hellenistic sense, or in a sense of 
his own. (b) Again, it is the use of the contents of the LXX which 
is really significant. The nearest approach to ILoos 'E/3paious, in 
its treatment of the OT, is the speech of Stephen, the Hellenistic 
Jewish Christian, in Ac 7 1 ' 53 , where we have a similar use of the 
typological method and a similar freedom in handling the OT 
story (cp. EBi. 4791, e.g. Ac 7 29 =He n 27 ), which proves how 
men like these writers, for all their reverence for the LXX, sat 
wonderfully free to the letter of the scripture and employed, 
without hesitation, later Jewish traditions in order to interpret it 
for their own purposes. But Stephen's reading of the OT is 
not that of IIpos 'EySpcuous. The latter never dwells on the 
crime of the Jews in putting Jesus to death (12 3 is merely a 
general, passing allusion), whereas Stephen makes that crime 
part and parcel of the age-long obstinacy and externalism which 
had characterized Israel. In IIpos f E/?pcuous, again, the kXt]- 
povo/xia of Palestine is spiritualized (3 7f- ), whereas Stephen merely 
argues that its local possession by Israel was not final. Stephen, 
again, argues that believers in Jesus are the true heirs of the OT 
spiritual revelation, not the Jews ; while in IIpos 'E/?paious the 
continuity of the People is assumed, and Christians are regarded 
as ipso facto the People of God, without any allusion to the Jews 
having forfeited their privileges. Here the author of IIpos 
'E/?paious differs even from the parable of Jesus (cp. on i 1 ); he 
conveys no censure of the historical Jews who had been 
responsible for the crucifixion. The occasional resemblances 
between Stephen's speech and IIpos 'E/3paious are not so signifi- 
cant as the difference of tone and temper between them, e.g. in 
their conceptions of Moses and of the angels (cp. on He 2 2 ). 
For another thing, (c) the conception of God derives largely 

1 On the philosophical background of ideas as well as of words, see A. R. 
Eagar in Hermathena, xi. pp. 263-287 ; and H. T. Andrews in Expositor*, 
xiv. pp. 348 f. 


from the element of awe and majesty in the OT (see on i 3 
4 13 io 30 - 31 12 29 ). This has been already noted (see pp. xxxvf.). 
But linguistically there are characteristic elements in the various 
allusions to God. Apart altogether from a stately term like 
MeyaXwo-vvr) (i 8 8 1 ) or Ao'fa (9 s ), we get a singular number of 
indirect, descriptive phrases like 5V ov to. -n-avTa ko.1 oV ov ra 
travra (2 10 ), tw iroirjcravTi avrov (3 2 ), 7rp6s ov rjpuv 6 Ao'yo? (4 13 ), 
tov oWdpcvov aw^ttv o-vtov eV 0a.vd.TOv (5"), 6 eVayyciAdpci'os 
(io 23 II 11 ), tov aofjCLTOV (il 27 ), tov drr ovpavaiv xPVf xaT % ol ' Ta i 1 2 25 )- 

After i 1 , indeed, there is a slight tendency to avoid the use of 
6 Oeos and to prefer such periphrases of a solemn and even 
liturgical tone. It is noticeable, e.g., that while 6 deos occurs 
about seventy-eight times in 2 Co (which is about the same 
length as IIpos 'E/3pcuovs), it only occurs fifty-five times in the 
latter writing. The title (6) Kvpios is also rare ; it was probably 
one of the reasons that suggested the quotation in i 10f - (xvpu), 
but it is mainly applied to God (12 14 ), and almost invariably 
in connexion with OT quotations (7 21 8 2 8 8f - io 16 io 30 12 6 13 6 ). 
Once only it is applied to Jesus (2 s ), apart from the solitary use of 
6 Kvpios rjfxwv in 7 14 ( + 'It/o-ov?, 33. 104. 2127) and in the doxology 
with 'It/o-oCs (13 20 ). It is not a term to which the author attaches 
special significance (cp. on 7 24 ). 'Itjo-ou?, as in (i) 2 9 (tov o"e 
/?pa;(u Tt nap dyye'Aovs r)\aTTwp.evov /JAeVopev 'Irjo-ovv), (ii) 3 1 
(KaTavorjaaTe tov olttocttoXov kcu dp-^upia t^s 6/xoAoyias fjp.wv 
'lyo-ovv), (iii) 4 14 (e^ovrcs ovv dp^iepea pcyav SuXrjXvdora tovs 
ovpavovs, 'It/o-ovv), (iv) 6 20 (oVov TrpoSpofJLOS VTrip rjfiwv flarjXBev 
'I-qcrovs), (v) 7 22 (/caTa too-o£tov ko.1 /cpeiTTOvos BiaBrJKrjs yeyovev 
eyyvos 'Ir]o~ov<;), (vi) IO 19 (iv t<S cupaTi 'Ir/coC), (vii) 12 2 (tov ttjs 
7uot€0>s dp\r]ybv ko.1 TeAeitDTTJv 'Ir^o-ovv), (viii) I2 24 (koX 8ta0rjK-q<i 
vcas p.€0-LT7] 'Irjaov), (ix) 13 12 (816 ko.1 'Irjaovs), (x) 13 20 (tov 
7Toip.iva twv 7rpo/?aTWv tov pe'yav Iv aipaTi Sia#>;/o7s alwvtov, tov 
Kvpiov rjp.C)v 'Irjaovv), is generally the climax of an impressive 
phrase or phrases. The unique use of this name in such con- 
nexions soon led to liturgical or theological expansions, as, e.g., 
3 1 ( + Xpto-Tov, C C KL* 104. 326. 1 1 75 syr arm Orig. Chrys.), 
6 20 ( + Xpi<rro's, D), io 19 ( + T0O Xpio-Tov, 1827 vg), 13 12 ( + 6, 5 [as 
Col 3 17 ]. 330 [as Col 3 17 ]. 440 [as Ro 8 11 ]. 623. 635. 1867. 2004 : 
+ 6 Kvpios, 1836 : Xpto-To?, 487), 13 20 ( + Xpio-ToV, D * 5. 104. 177. 
2 4i- 3 2 3- 337- 43 6 - 547- 623°. 635. 1831. 1837. 1891 lat dfto1 
syr hkl Chrys.). Xpio-To? (3 6 9"- 24 ), or 6 Xpio-To's (3 14 5* 6 1 9 14 - 28 - 
1 1 26 ), has also been altered ; e.g. 3 14 (nvptov, 256. 2127 : Oeov, 635 : 
om. tov, 467), 5 6 (om. 6, 462), 6 1 (Oeov, 38. 2005 : om. 429), 9 24 
( + 6 C c 13*104. 256. 263. 326.467. 1739. 2127 arm: 'It/o-ovs, 
823 vg Orig.), but less seriously. 'lyo-ovs Xpio-To's only occurs 
thrice ( 1 o 10 13 s - 21 ). 


So far as vocabulary and style go, there are certain affinities between 
Hpds 'ElSpaLous and {a) the Lucan writings, {6) I Peter, and, to a less degree, 
(c) the Pastoral Epistles ; but an examination of the data indicates that the 
affinities are not sufficient to do more than indicate a common atmosphere of 
thought and expression at some points. I do not now feel it safe to go 
beyond this cautious verdict. The author of IIp6s 'EfipaLovs has idiosyncrasies 
which are much more significant than any such affinities. His literary re- 
lations with the other NT writers, if he had any, remain obscure, with two 
exceptions. Whether he had read Paul's epistles or not, depends in part on 
the question whether the quotation in icr" was derived outright from Ro 
i2 19 or from some florilegium of messianic texts; but, apart from this, there 
are numerous cases of what seem to be reminiscences of Paul. As foi 
i Peter, our author has some connexion, which remains unsolved, with what 
probably was an earlier document. 

To sum up. He has a sense of literary nicety, which 
enters into his earnest religious argument without rendering it 
artificial or over-elaborate. He has an art of words, which is 
more than an unconscious sense of rhythm. He has the style 
of a trained speaker; it is style, yet style at the command 
of a devout genius. " Of Hellenistic writers he is the freest 
from the monotony that is the chief fault of Hellenistic com- 
pared with literary Greek ; his words do not follow each other 
in a mechanically necessary order, but are arranged so as to 
emphasize their relative importance, and to make the sentences 
effective as well as intelligible. One may say that he deals with 
the biblical language (understanding by this the Hellenistic 
dialect founded on the LXX, not merely his actual quotations 
from it) ... as a preacher, whose first duty is to be faithful, 
but his second to be eloquent " (VV. H. Simcox, The Writers of 
the JVT, p. 43). 

§ 4. Text, Commentaries, etc. 


The textual criticism of IIpos 'E/3/Wovs is bound up with the 
general criticism of the Pauline text (cp. Romans in the 
present series, pp. lxiii ff.), but it has one or two special features 
of its own, which are due in part (a) to the fact of its exclusion 
from the NT Canon in some quarters of the early church, and 
(b) also to the fact that the Pauline F (Greek text) and G are 
wholly, while B C H M N W p 13 and 048 are partially, missing. 
It is accidental that the Philoxenian Syriac version has not 
survived, but the former phenomenon (a) accounts for the 
absence of IIpos 'E/Jpcuous not simply from the Gothic version, 
but also from the old Latin African bible-text for which 
Tertullian and Cyprian, the pseudo-Augustinian Speculum and 
"Ambrosiaster," furnish such valuable evidence in the case of 

n saec. 

IV. (' 

A „ 


B „ 


c „ 


D „ 



the Pauline epistles. The {b) defectiveness of B, etc., on the 
other hand, is to some extent made up by the discovery of the 
two early papyrus-fragments. 

The following is a list of the MSS and the main cursives, the 
notations of Gregory and von Soden being added in brackets, 
for the sake of convenience in reference : 

Codicum Index. 

v.) [oi : 5 2). 

[02 : 5 4]. 

[03 : 5 1] cont. I 1 -^ 3 : for remainder cp. cursive 

[04 : 5 3] cont. 2 4 -7 26 9 15 -io 2 * I2 16 -i3 2s . 

[06 : a 1026] cont. i 1 -^ 20 . Codex Claromontanus 
is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is 
poorly 1 reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) 
E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of 
the latter (i 1 -^ 8 ) is therefore of no independent 
value (cp. Hort in WH, §§ 335-337) ; for its 
Latin text, as well as for that of F = codex 
Augiensis (saec. be), whose Greek text of Ilpds 
'Efipalovs has not been preserved, see below, 
p. lxix. 
H „ vi. [015 : a 1022] cont. I s " 8 2 11 " 16 3 13 - 1 * 4 12 - 14 io 1 " 7 - S *- M 

I2 io-is ^24-26 . mutilated fragments, at Moscow 
and Paris, of codex Coislinianus. 

[018 : I 1 ]. 

[020 : a 5] cont. I 1 -I3 10 . 

[0121 : a 1031] cont. i 1 ^ 3 I2 20 -I3 2s . 

[0122 : o 1030] cont. 5 8 -6 10 . 

[025 : a 3] cont. i'-I2 8 I2 11 -I3 2S . 

[a 1034] cont. 2 14 -5 5 io 8 -ii 13 u 28 -^ 17 : Oxyrhyn- 
chus Papyri, iv. (1904) 36-48. The tendency, 
in 2 14 -5 5 , to agree with B "in the omission of 
unessential words and phrases . . . gives the 
papyrus peculiar value in the later chapters, 
where B is deficient"; thus p ls partially makes 
up for the loss of B after 9 1 *. Otherwise the 
text of the papyrus is closest to that of D. 
p 18 ,, iv. [o 1043] cont. 9 12 " la : Oxyrhynchus Papyri, viii. 

(1911) II-13. 
* ,, (vi. ?) viii.-ix. [044 : 5 6] cont. i 1 ^ 11 9 19 -I3 25 . 
W „ (iv.-vi.) [I] cont. i 1 ' 3 - 9 " 12 2 <-»- "-" 3 «-«- m-m 4 s-6. m-m 56-7 

gl-3. 10-13. 20 yl-2. 7-11. 18-20. 27-28 gl. 7-9 gl-4. 9-11. 16-19. 
28-27 j 5-8. 16-ia 26-29. 3S-38 ] j 6-7. 12-15. 2U-24. 31-33. 38-40 
I2 1. 7-9. 16-18. 2S-27 j 37-9. 16-18. 2S-2S . NT MSS fa 

Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. 
of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexan- 
drian text, and is "quite free from Western 

1 An instance may be found in io 33 , where a corrector of D obelized the 
first and last letters of bveih^6^voi and wrote over it deaTpt^S/Mevoi. In E 
we get the absurd vi.d^o/xevodeaTot^o/j.ei'OL (cp. Gregory's Textkritik des NT, 
i. 109). 


J J 







> J 








048 saec. v. 

[a 1] cont. 11 


0142 ,, X. 

[o 6 ]. 

0151 ,, xii. 

O 21 ]. 



Codex Patiriensis is a 

Three specimens of how the MSS group themselves may be 
printed, (a) shows the relation between M and the papyrus p 13 : 

M agrees with p u in eight places : 

3 1 'Irjffovv. 

3 3 56£t?5 ovtos ( + K L vg, alone). 

3 4 iravra. 

3 8 idv. 

3 9 vfj.Coi> iv SoKifxacria. 
3 10 Tavrr}. 

3 13 rtj &■ ii/iQv. 

4 2 <rvyK€K(e)pacrn4i>ovs. 

It opposes p 13 ( + B) in 

3 2 + SX v . 

3 6 -+- fJ-txPL tAous ftefialar. 

3 9 + M«- 

4 s otv. 

4 s + ti)v before KardTravaiv. 

M has some remarkable affinities with the text of Origen {e.g. I s 1' 2 1 ). 
(b) exhibits the relations of n and D*, showing how A and B agree with them 
on the whole, and how p 13 again falls into this group : 

k and D agree m 

I 2 position of iiroi-rjoev ABM 

8 4 otv 


I 8 + Kai before t/ pd/35os ABM 

8 4 om. tu>v Uptuv 


2 1 irapapvu>/j.€V A B 

8 U om. avrQu after puKpov A B 

2 7 + Kai KCLTtaTTJlTaS . . . 

9 5 x € P 0V fiL v (alone of un 

<rov A 


2 IB 5ov\iat 

9 9 Kad' fjv 

A B 

3 1 om. Xpurr6p ABM 

P 13 

9 21 epavricrev 


3* irdvra ABM 

P 13 

o?* om. 6 before Xptor6s 


3 10 Tat/7-7? ABM 

P 13 

io 10 om. ol ,, did 


3 19 iC (so f) ABM 

P 1S 

io 12 oOtoi 


4 1 KaTa\nrofj.4vrjt (alone), 

IO 16 Stdvotav 


except for p 13 

IO 23 XeXovufidvoi 

4 7 irpoelprjrai A (B) 

p> 3 

1 1 3 rb fi\€Tr6pievov 


4 16 (rvvrradrjaai A B* 

II 19 Swards 

4 16 £Xeos A B 

1 1 29 + 777 J 


5 3 $1 avr-qv A B 

II 30 tireaav 


5 8 fxepl a/j.apTiu>i> A B 

II 32 p.e ydp 


6 10 om. rod k6itov A B 

1 1 84 p.axaipT}S (so 1 1 37 ) 


6 16 om. fUv A B 

1 2 s iraidias 


7* Aevl 

12 8 position of i<rre 


7 6 om. t6v before 'Afipad/j. B 

I2 9 TroXtf (so I2 25 ) 


7 10 ,, 6 ,, Me\x«r«5<?K B 

12 21 ZKTpofj.os (alone) 

7 11 aiiTTJs A B 

13 3 KaKouxovfidvuv 



7 11 vevopLodtTrjTai A B 

13 4 ydp 



7 16 aapKivr)% A B 

13 8 <? x 0& 



7 17 fxaprvpflrai A B 

13 21 om. £py<$ 

8 2 om. ical before ovk &v- 

dpuiros B 






(c) exhibits characteristic readings of H, with some of its 
main allies : 

I 8 Kadapi.<Tfj.6v K 


D b 

H # 


v g 


2 15 dovXias K 




3 1S ris if- v/j-Cov p 13 k 





v g 




3 1 * rod Xpiurov 767. N 


C D 



v g 

3 17 tLctii> Si h 


C D 





4 12 ivepyijs N 


C D 



KL vg 

4 12 *pvXVS K 








4 16 avvTradrjcrai K 



IO 1 0i><rtas (-ai>rtDv) 


C D 


KL vg 

IO 1 aft 




IO 1 dwdrai 



KL vg 


IO 2 om. owe 


(vg) pesh 

IO 2 KeKadapiafxivovs N 





IO 6 ijvddKriaas 


C D* 



I O 34 rots SecTfilon p 13 




v g 



IO^eai/rous p 13 N 



v g 


I0 34 ii7rapfi»' p 13 N* 




v g 


l0 35 /ie7 £ i^'?>' /Utc^. X 





I0 37 xpon6i K c 


D c 




IO 38 /*ou £k iriareus N 



v g 


I2 11 7r£(ra 5i p 13 x c 


D c 


KL vg 



I2 ls 7rot^(raTe N 





I2 18 CLVT7JS (p 13 ) 




I2 16 ai>Tou K c 





13 21 om. tGiv aiwviov 

C C D 



I^tjIxCiv K* 


C D* 


M vg 



boh sah 

I3 !6 d/»i)i'. k° 


C D 


PMK vg 

pesh (arm 






[5 254] 







[a 253] 


1 » 





[5 453] 


> » 





[5 356] 


ll- 9 3 




IO 22 - 

-13 20 







[a 103] 







-x. [5 48] 


s 17 







[5 309] 


» 1 





[5 355] 







[0"- lu3 ] 







[5 505] 







[a 200] 







[5 652] 







[* 51] 







[O 28 ] 







[a 103] 







[E» 10 ] 


1 1 

xiii. - 




[a 106] 







[a 101] 







[a 200] 




[9» M ] 
[a 203] 
[a 365] 

[* 457] 

[a 469] 

[a 1065] cont. 1 1 -6 t 


[a 69] 

[8 156] 

[a 258] 

[5 507] 

[5 206] 

[5 152] 

[a 174] 

[a 216] 

[a 466] 

-xiv. [5 372] 

[a 1574] cont. Q'*- 1 3 a 

[5 600] 

-xii. [a 157] 



326 saec. 

327 ., 
330 ,, 
337 t, 

371 »» 
378 „ 

383 ., 
418 ,, 

424 >, 

429 >, 

431 n 

436 ,, 

440 „ 











1 1 











x. ? 

















[<* 257] 
[O 36 ] 
[5 259] 

[a 205] 

[a 1 43 1] cont. 7 

[a 258] 

[a 353] cont. 1M3 7 

(x.) [a 1530] cont. I 1 - 

I3 17 
[0 12 ] Hort's 67 
-xiv. [a 398] 
[5 268] 
[a 172] 
[5 260] 
[0 18 ] 
[a 52] 
-xiv. [a 397] 


[a 502] 

[a 171] 

[5 459] Hort's 102 

[5 152] 

[5 101] 

[5 602] 

[3 157] 
[a 364] 

t« 173] 
[a 161] 
[a 169] 
[a 552] 

cont. i J -7 


[5 454] 
[5 203] 
[5 368] 

[a 356] 
[a 470] 
[a 382] 
[a 264] 
[a "3] 

[» 55] 



941 saec. 

xiii. [5 369] 


3 > 

xiii. [5 353] 



xiii. [a 370] 

1 149 


xiii. [5 370] 



x. [a 74] cont. i 1 -3 8 6*- 

I3 20 



xii. [5 198] 



xi. [a 158] 

128S ( 


xi. fa 162] 



xi. [a 170] 



xi. [5 180] 



xi. [a 116] 



xiv. [a 464] 



xiii. [a 361] cont. I 1 -^ 8 



xiv. [a 468] 

161 1 


xii. [a 208] 


1 » 

x. [a 78] 



xiii. [a 396] cont. I 1 -I3 U 



xiv. [a 486] 



xiii. [a 367] 



xiv. [a 472] 



x. [a 65] 



xi. [0 192] 



xi. [a 175] 



x. [a 64] 



xi. [a 114] cont. i'-ii 10 



xi.-xii. [a 154] 



xii. [a 209] 



xii. [a 252] 



x. [a 62] 



x. [a 70] 



xi. [On I"'] 


1 1 

xi. [0 * 103 ] 



x.-xi. [a 1066] 



x. [a 56] 



xiv. [a 1436] cont. i'-7 l 



xii. [5 202] 



xi. [a 116] 



xi.-xii. [a 184] 



xii. [5 299] 

Of these some like 5 and 33 and 442 and 999 and 1908, are 
of the first rank; von Soden pronounces 1288 "a very good 
representative " of his H text. Yet even the best cursives, like 
the uncials, may stray (see on 4 16 ). As a specimen of how one 
good cursive goes, I append this note of some characteristic 
readings in 424** : 

I s om. avrov after dwa/xeus 



d e f vg 

om. TifiGiv 

h* A B D* MP 

2 9 x w P^ 



3 1 om. Xp«JT<5i» 

k A BD*C* M P 

d e f vg sah 

3 6 «s 

D* M 

de f vg 

3 10 ravTj) 

« ABD* M 







IO 1 

io : * 



I2 2 

I2 a 



vnas (om. rivd) 
om. Tuif itpeuv 

KO.6' fjV 

Kadapifrrai (dvdyKrj) 


om. \4yei Kvpios 

om. avrov 


air' ovpavov 


k A B D # 
k A B D* 
k A D b C 
x* D* 

n* A D* 


k A C 

P d e f vg 



P [jr. D*, Orig] 

P defvg 

(Orig??) fvg 

P defvg 



Latin Versions. 

A. Old Latin (vt), saec. ii. (?)-iv. 

Hebrews is omitted in the pseudo-Augustinian Speculum ( = m) and in 
codex Boernerianus (=g), but included in — 

d (Latin version of D) 

f ( „ „ „ F) 

r (codex Frisingensis : saec. vi., cont. 6 6 -7 5 7 8 -8 J op-ii 1 ) 

x? ( ,, Bodleianus : ,, ix., cont. i 1 — 1 1 23 ) 

Of these, r (corresponding to the text used by Augustine), with the few 
quotations by Priscillian, represents the African, d (in the main) ' and x 3 the 
European, type of the Old Latin text ; but f is predominantly vulgate, and 
it is doubtful whether x 2 is really Old Latin. On the other hand, some 
evidence for the Old Latin text is to be found occasionally in the following 
MSS of— 

B. Vulgate (vg), saec. iv. 

am (Codex Amiatinus : saec. vii.-viii.) 

fu/d( „ 

Fuldensis : ,, vi.) 

cav ( „ 
tol ( „ 

Cavensis: „ ix.) \^ ., 
Toltrtanus : ,, viii.)/ " 

karl( „ 

Harleianus : ,, viii.) 

c ( „ 

Colbertinus : ,, xii.) 

Though c is an Old Latin text for the gospels, Hebrews and the rest of the 
NT are vulgate; but He ic—ll in harl (which elsewhere has affinities with 
am and fuld) is Old Latin, according to E. S. Buchanan ( The Epislles and 
Apocalypse from the codex Harleianus [z= Wordsworth's Z 2 ], numbered Harl. 
1772 in the British Museum Library, 1913). Both in harl and in e, 
jj3-ss h^ a S p ec i a l capitulation; harl, which adds after "the prophets" in 

1 The text of d corresponds to that of Lucifer of Cagliari (saec. iv. ), who 
quotes 3 B -4 10 and 4 11 " 18 in his treatise De non conueniendo cum haereticis, 
xi. (CSEL., vol. xiv.). According to Harnack (Studien zur Vul^ata des 
Hebrderbriefs, 1920) it is d, not r, which underlies the vulgate (cp. J. Belser 
on "die Vulgata u. der Griech. Text im Hebraerbrief," in 'Tkeolog. Quartal- 
schrift, 1906, pp. 337-369)- 


n32_" Ananias azarias misahel daniel helias helisaeus" — apparently points 
to ii 3-32 having been at one time added to the original text which ran 
(ii 2,33 ): "in hac enim testimonium habuerunt seniores qui per fidem 
uicerunt regna," etc. Of these MSS, fuld represents an Italian text, cav and 
tol a Spanish (the former with some admixture of Old Latin) ; am (whose text 
is akin to fuld) is an Italian text, written in Great Britain. At an early 
date the Latin versions were glossed, however (cp. on 7 1 n 28 ). 

Egyptian Versions. 

sah = Sahidic (saec. iii.-iv.) : The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern 

Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131. 

boh = Bohairic (saec. vi.-vii.) : The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern 

Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472- 

In sah Upbs 'Efipalovs comes very early in the Pauline canon, immediately 
after Romans and Corinthians, even earlier than in the first (a.d. 400) 
Syriac canon, whereas in boh it comes between the Pauline church letters and 
the Pastorals. The latter seems to have been an early [i.e. a fourth century) 
position in the Eastern or Alexandrian canon, to judge from Athanasius 
(/■est. Ep. xxxix.); it reappears in the uncials K A B 1 W. Not long 
afterwards, at the Synod of Carthage (can. 39), in a.d. 397, it is put be- 
tween the Pauline and the Catholic epistles, which seems to have been the 
African and even the (or, a) Roman order. This reflects at least a doubt 
about its right to stand under Paul's name, whereas the order in sah and the 
primitive Syriac canon reflects a deliberate assertion of its Pauline authorship. 
The Alexandrian position is intermediate. 

The data of the Egyptian versions are of special interest, as several of the 
uncials have Egyptian affinities or an Egyptian origin, and as Upbs 'Efipalovs 
was early studied at Alexandria. Thus, to cite only one or two, boh is right, 
as against sah, e.g. in the rendering of irpbs in I 7 , in omitting SXw (3*), in 
rendering viroo-rdcreus as "confidence" in 3 14 , in rendering iv Aavel8 (4 1 ) "in 
David," in reading iradeiv in 9 26 , in rendering inrcWacm by "assurance" 
(so syr arm) in II 1 , in taking Ka\otip.evos by itself ( 1 1 8 ), in keeping i\idaffdr)<rav 
bef"re tirpleQi)<7a.v (ii 37 , though tireipdaOrjaav, = were tempted, is inferior to 
sah's omission of any such term), in reading iirayyeXlav (II 89 , where sah 
agrees with W in reading the plural), etc. On the other hand, and in a large 
number of cases, sah is superior, e.g. at 2 n ("a merciful and faithful high- 
priest"), at 3 6 (omitting p.ixpi reXovs pefialav), at 4 2 ((TvyKeKepacrixtvos), in 
rendering Kpa.TCip.ev (4 14 ) "let us hold on to," in maintaining debs in 6 3 (for 
"Lord "in boh), in omitting rod k6ttov in 6 10 , in reading iepeis (with W) in 
7 28 , in reading vp.u>v in 9 14 , in rendering the last words of g w , in rendering 
ap. . . . ivriXoylap in 1 2 s etc. Note also that sah agrees with arm in 
inserting rrjs before iirayyeXlas in 4 1 , iicrrepov \tyet in io 16 - 17 , and ydp in 12 4 , 
while boh agrees with arm in adding elir-ei* in I 8 and ald>vios at 5 10 , and both 
agree with arm in omitting ko,1 in I 6 . Both translate elcrepxbp-e&a. (4 s ) as a 
luture, read dirtarlav in 4 8 (with vg and arm), omit Kara, rrjv t. M. in 7 21 , 
take dyiov as an adjective in 9 1 , read fxeXKdvriov in 9 11 , take fjs in 1 1 7 to mean 
the ark, read tj arelpa in 1 1 11 , render 6yKov by " pride " in 12 1 , take inrop.tveTt 
as imperative in 12 7 , and refer a\n"t)v to rSirov p-eravoias in I2 17 . Sah has 

1 Yet in the archetype of the capitulation system in B Ylpbs ' Efipalovs must 
have stood between Galatians and Ephesians, which "is the order given in 
the Sahidic version of the 'Festal letter' of Athanasius" (Kirsopp Lake, 
The Text of the NT, p. 53). 


some curious renderings, e.g. "hewed out" for ivciccuvleev (io 20 ), "the 
place of the blood" for ai>aroy in I2 4 , and actually "hanging for them 
another time " (avaoravpovvTas iavrois, 6 8 ) ; in general it is rather more vivid 
and less literal, though boh reads " through the sea of Shari " [? slaughter] in 
II 29 (sah is defective here), which is singular enough. On the other hand, 
sah is more idiomatic. Thus it is in sah, not in boh, that vwdpol -yiv^adf (6 12 ) 
is rendered by "become daunted." The differences in a passage like I2 22 '* 
are specially instructive. Sah takes irav-rryvpet with what follows, boh with 
dyyiXuiv (" myriads of angels keeping festival") ; on the other hand, sah is 
right as against boh's reading of irvev/iari (v. 23 ), while both render "God the 
judge of all." In v. 26 both render iTrrryyekTai literally by "he promised," 
but boh translates irapaKan^dvovres in v. 28 as a future and x^P lv as "grace," 
whereas sah renders correctly in both cases. In ch. 1 3, sah seems to read 
irepi<p4pe<rde in v. 9 (" be not tossed about "), inserts tpytp (as against boh), and 
reads r]/uv in v. 21 ; in v. 22 it reads dv^xfcde ; in v. 23 , while boh renders 
&iro\e\v/xtvot> by "released," sah renders "our brother Timotheos whom I 
sent" (which confuses the sense of the passage altogether), and, unlike boh, 
omits the final d/i^p. It is significant that sah 1 often tallies with r as against 
d, e.g. in 6 18 (Iffxvpdv), 7 s7 (dpxt-epeU), though with d now and then against r, 
as in II 6 (5^). It agrees with d and eth in reading irvevfia in I 7 , u>5 l/xdnov in 
l a (as well as eXf£eis), and /cai rCbv rpdywv in 9 19 , but differs from d almost as 
often, and from eth in reading rai/rj; in 3 10 , in omitting /card t. t. M. in 7 21 , 
etc. Unexpectedly a collation of sah and of eth yields no material for a clear 
decision upon the relation of the texts they imply. 

Svriac Versions. 

For the Old Syriac, i.e. for the Syriac text of Hebrews prior to the vulgate 
revision (Peshitta) of the fifth century, we possess even less material than in 
the case of the Old Latin version. Hebrews belonged to the old Syrian canon, 
but the primitive text can only be recovered approximately from (i) the 
Armenian version, 2 which rests in part upon an Old Syriac basis — "readings 
of the Armenian vulgate which differ from the ordinary Greek text, especially 
if they are supported by the Peshitta, may be considered with some confidence 
to have been derived from the lost Old Syriac" (F. C. Burkitt, EBi. 5004) ; 
from (ii) the homilies of Aphraates (saec. iv), and from (iii) the Armenian 
translation of Ephraem Syrus (saec. iv.), Commentarii in Epp. Pauli nimc 
primum ex armenio in latinum sermonem a .patribus Mekitharistis translati 
(Venice, 1893, pp. 200-242). 

Hebrews is not extant in the Philoxenian version of a.d. 508, but the 
Harklean revision of that text (a.d. 616-617) > s now accessible in complete 
form, thanks to R. L. Bensly's edition ( The Harklean Version of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, 1 i 28 -^ 26 , now edited for the first time with Introduction and 
Notes, Cambridge, 1889). The Peshitta version is now conveniently accessible 
in the British and Foreign Bible Society's edition of The New Testament in 
Syriac (1920). 

1 It rarely goes its own way, hut the omission of any adjective at all with 
irvedfxaTos in 9 14 is most remarkable ; so is the reading of vfids for rj/xdi in 13 6 
(where M Orig have one of their characteristic agreements in omitting any 

9 Mr. F. C. Conybeare kindly supplied me with a fresh collation. 



The early evidence for the use of IIpos 'E/?paiovs may be 
chronologically tabulated as follows : 





Clem. Rom. 


(Old Syriac)(01d Latin) 

Clem. Alex. 
Origen (-248) 



p 13 p 18 

Eusebius (-340) 
Basil (-379) 

Lucifer (-371) 


Sahidic (?) 

Cyril of Jerus. (-386) 
Apollinaris (-392) 

Priscillian (-385) 
Ambrose (397) 


vulgate (370-383) 

Chrysostom (-407) 
Theodore of Mopsuestia 

Jerome (-420) 



peshitta (411-435) 

Cyril of Alex. (-444) 
Theodoret (-458) 

Augustine (-430) 





D d 

H r 




harklean (616-617) 


* tol 

Bohairic (?) 



M N f 
P cav 

Sedulius Scotus 



KABCHM*W (with p 13 ) would represent von Soden's 
H text (approximating to WH's Neutral), his I text (correspond- 
ing to WH's Western) being represented by K LP among the 
uncials. But the difference between these in the Pauline corpus 
are, he admits, less than in the case of the gospels. Bousset (in 
Texte und Untersuchungen, xi. 4, pp. 45 f.) has shown that N c H 
(which tend to agree with Origen's text) have affinities with 
Euthalius ; they carry with them a number of cursives (including 
33. 69. 88. 104. 424**. 436 and 1908), and enable us to recon 
struct the archetype of codex Pamphili, i.e. the third century 
recension of Origen's text. This group would therefore stand 
midway between B K A C and the later K L (with majority of 
cursives). But no exact grouping of the MSS is feasible. The 
text has suffered early corruption at several places, e.g. 2 9 4 2 7 1 
io 34 n 4 11 37 12 3 12 18 and 13 21 , though only the first of these 
passages is of real, religious importance. But, apart from this, 
the earliest MSS betray serious errors (cp. on 7 1 11 36 ), as 
though the text had not been well preserved. Thus B, for all its 
services (e.g. in 6 2 ), goes wrong repeatedly (e.g. i 8 i 8 4 12 ), as does 
N* (e.g. i 6 om. airy, 4 9 6 9 9 17 roVe, io 32 euxapWas), and even 
p 13 in 4 3 (eAevaovTcu), io 18 (d/Aapriais), II 1 (airou-TacTis), etc. The 
errors of W are mainly linguistic, but it reads lf6vfj.-qa€w<i in 4 12 , 
7ri<7Tews in 6 11 etc. A test passage like 2 14 , where " blood and 
flesh " naturally passed into the conventional " flesh and blood," 


shows the inferior reading supported not only by K and L, 
as we might expect, but by / and tol, the peshitta and eth. 
Similarly the wrong reading p-aprvpel in 7 17 brings out not only 
K and L again but C D syr and a group of cursives, 256. 326. 
436. 1 1 75. 1837. 2127. In 9 28 only arm inserts 7uo-t«i after 
d7re/<Se;(Oju.€Voi9, but the similar homiletic gloss of Sia 7ricrr«a>s 
before or after eis amnqptav turns up in A P syr 1 ^, and in 38. 69. 
218. 256. 263. 330. 436. 440. 462. 823, 1245. 1288. 1611. 1837. 
1898. 2005. In 9 14 the gloss kcu dA^ivw is supported also by 
A P as well as by boh and one or two cursives like 104. To 
take another instance, the gloss /cat 8a*piW (in io 28 ) has only 
D* among the uncials, but it is an Old Latin reading, though r 
does not support it, and it was read in the original text of the 
harklean Syriac. Again, in n 12 , what B. Weiss calls the 
" obvious emendation " iyew-qOrjaav is supported by N L p 13 * 
and 1739, while in the same verse koi w<s 77 (/<a#cos, D) carries 
with it K A D K L P p 13 , and D ^ omit 17 -n-apa to x«^os. When 
M resumes at 12 20 it is generally in the company of X A D P 
(as, e.g., i2 23 - 24 - 25 I3 5 - 9 - 20 ), once (12 27 om. r-qv) with D* arm, 
once with D* (om. i$ovcriav, 13 10 ), once with KLP (kclkox- 13 3 ) 
against N A D*. Such phenomena render the problem of 
ascertaining any traditional text of XIp6s 'Efipaiovs unusually 
difficult. Even the data yielded by Clement of Alexandria 1 
and the Latin and Egyptian versions do not as yet facilitate a 
genealogical grouping of the extant MSS or a working hypo- 
thesis as to the authorities in which a text free from Western 
readings may be preserved. 


The eighteen homilies by Origen (1253) are lost, though 
Eusebius (cp. above, pp. xviii-xix) quotes two fragments on the 
style and authorship. The 'A7roAoyid 'fipiyevous of Pamphilus 
(partially extant in the Latin version of Rufinus) implies that 
he also wrote a commentary on the epistle, bu* this is lost, and 
the Syriac commentary of Ephraem Syrus (t373) is only extant 
in the Latin version of an Armenian version (cp. above, p. lxxi). 
We are fortunate, however, in possessing the first important ex- 
position of IIp6s 'Eftpaiovs, viz. the homilies of Chrysostom (1407), 
extant in the form of notes, posthumously published, which the 
presbyter Constantine had taken down. Chrysostom's com- 
ments are drawn upon by most of the subsequent expositors. 
The foremost of these Greek exegetes is Theodore of Mopsuestia 
(t428), who is the first to show any appreciation of historical 

1 The original text in one place at least (cp. on II 4 ) can be restored by 
the help of p 13 and Clement. 


criticism (Theodori Mopsuesteni in NT Commentaria quae reperiri 
potuerunt, collegit O. F. Fritzsche, 1847, PP- 160-172). The 
exposition by his contemporary Theodoret of Cyrrhus (1458) is 
based almost entirely upon Chrysostom and Theodore of 
Mopsuestia {Theod. Comm. in omnes Pauli epistolas, ed. E. B. 
Pusey, 1870, ii. 132-219). Similarly, the work of Oecumenius 
of Tricca in Thrace (tenth century) contains large excerpts from 
previous writers, including Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
and Photius (cp. Migne, PG. cxviii-cxix). Theophylact, arch- 
bishop of Bulgaria (end of eleventh century), also draws upon 
his predecessors (cp. Migne, PG. cxxiv), like Euthymius Ziga- 
benus (beginning of twelfth century), a monk near Constanti- 
nople. The latter's commentary on Hebrews is in the second 
volume (pp. 341 f.) of his Commentarii (ed. N. Calogeras, Athens, 
1887). In a happy hour, about the middle of the sixth century, 
Cassiodorus (Migne's PL. Ixx. p. 1 1 20) employed a scholar called 
Mutianus to translate Chrysostom's homilies into Latin. This 
version started the homilies on a fresh career in the Western 
church, and subsequent Latin expositions, e.g. by Sedulius 
Scotus, W. Strabo, Alcuin, and Thomas of Aquinum, build on 
this version and on the vulgate. An excellent account of 
these commentaries is now published by Riggenbach in 
Zahn's Forschungen zur Gesch. des NTlichen Kanons, vol. viii. 

Since F. Bleek's great edition (1828-1840) there has been a 
continuous stream of commentaries ; special mention may be 
made of those by Delitzsch (Eng. tr. 1867), Liinemann (1867, 
1882), Moses Stuart 4 (i860), Alford 2 (1862), Reuss (i860, 1878), 
Kurtz (1869), Hofmann (1873), A. B. Davidson (1882), F. 
Rendall (1888), C. J. Vaughan (1890), B. Weiss (in Meyer, 
1897), von Soden (1899), Westcott 3 (1903), Hollmann 2 (1907), 
E. J. Goodspeed (1908), A. S. Peake {Century Bible, n.d.), M. 
Dods (1910), E. C. Wickham (1910), A. Seeberg (1912), 
Riggenbach (1913, 1922), Windisch (1913), and Nairne (1918). 

Other works referred to, in this edition, 1 are as follows : — 

Bengel (Bgl.) . J. A. Bengelii Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742). 

Blass . . F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen 
Griechisch : vierte, vb'llig neugearbeitete Auflage, 
besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, 
Brief an die Bebrder, Text mit Angabe der 
Rhythmen (1903). 

1 Some references, in the textual notes, are the usual abbreviations, like 
Amb. = Ambrose, Ath. or Athan. =Athanasius, Cosm. =Cosmas Indico- 
pleustes (ed. E. O. Winstedt, Cambridge, 1909), Cyr. = Cyril of Alexandria, 
Euth. =Euthalius, Hil. = Hilary, Lucif. = Lucifer, Sedul. = Sedulius Scotus, 
Thdt. = Theodoret, Theod. = Theodore of Mopsuestia, etc. 



BGU. . 

BM. . 
EBi. . 


ERE. . 


GCP. . 

IMA. . 
LXX . 
Magn. . 
Michel . 
Mitteis- Wilcken 
OGIS. . 

Philo . 
Radermacher . 

Rein. P. 

Aegyptische Urkunden (Griechisch Urkunden), 

ed. Wilcken (1895). 
Greek Papyri in the British Museum (1893 f.). 
E. A. Abbott, Diatessarica. 
The Encyclopaedia Biblica (1 899-1 903, ed. J. S. 

Black and T. K. Cheyne). 
Adnotationes (15 16), In epist. Pauli apostoli ad 

Hebraeos paraphrasis ( 1 5 2 1 ). 
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. 

The Expositor. Small superior numbers indicate 

the series. 
Grundziige und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, 

von L. Mitteis und U. Wilcken (191 2), I. 

Grammatik der Septuaginta, Laut- und Wort- 

lehre, von R. Helbing (1907). 
Inscriptiones Graecae Insul. Maris Aegaei 

(1895 f.). 
Elavil Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem 

Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber. 
The Old Testament in Greek according to the 

Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete). 
Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (ed. 

Kern, 1900). 
Recueil a? Inscriptions Grecques (ed. C. Michel, 

Grundziige u. Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde 

J. H. Moulton's Grammar of New Testament 

Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906). 
Dittenberger's Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones 

Selectae (1903-1905). 
The Oxyrhytichus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell 

and A. Hunt). 
Primitive Christianity, vol. iii. (19 10) pp. 272- 

Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt 

(recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland). 
Neutestamentliche Grammatik (191 1), in Lietz- 

mann's Handbuch zum JVeuen Testament 

(vol. i.). 
Papyrus Grecs et Demotiques (Paris, 1905), ed. 

Th. Reinach. 
Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 2 (ed.VV. Ditten- 



Tebt. P. . . Tebtunis Papyri (ed. Grenfell and Hunt), 

Thackeray . H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old 

Testament in Greek (1909). 
Weiss . . B. Weiss, "Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe" 

(in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte 

der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3), 

also Der Hebrderbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher 

Beleuchtung ( 1 9 1 o). 
WH . . Westcott and Hort's New Testament in Greek 

(1890, 1896). 
Zahn . . Theodor Zahn's Einleitung in das NT, §§ 45-47. 


The final disclosure of God's mind and purpose has been made 
in his Son, who is far superior to the angels ; beware then of 
taking it casually and carelessly (i a -2 4 ) ! 

The epistle opens with a long sentence (vv. 1 - 4 ), the subject 
being first (vv. 1 - 2 ) God, then (vv. 3 - 4 ) the Son of God ; rhetorically 
and logically the sentence might have ended with eV (+ tw arm) 
vtw, but the author proceeds to elaborate in a series of dependent 
clauses the pre-eminence of the Son within the order of creation 
and providence. The main thread on which these clauses about 
the Son's relation to God and the world are strung is os . . . 
iKafitcrev iv Sc^ta t??s /u.€yaXcucrvvr/s. It is in this (including the 
purging of men from their sins by His sacrifice) that the final 
disclosure of God's mind and purpose is made ; 6 #eos iXdXrjo-ev 
■fjfjuv iv vl(2 . . . os . . • iK&6icrev kt\. But the cosmic signifi- 
cance of the Son is first mentioned (v. 2 ) ; he is not created but 
creative, under God. Here as in 2 10 the writer explicitly stresses 
the vital connexion between redemption and creation ; the Son 
who deals with the sins of men is the Son who is over the 
universe. This is again the point in the insertion of (pipuv re to. 

Trdvra kt\. before KaOaptcrpiov d/xapTLwv TroLr](rdp.evo<s. The object 
of insisting that the Son is also the exact counterpart of God (os wv 
kt\. 3a ), is to bring out the truth that he is not only God's organ 
in creation, but essentially divine as a Son. In short, since the 
object of the divine revelation (AaAetv) is fellowship between 
God and men, it must culminate in One who can deal with sin, 
as no prophet or succession of prophets could do ; the line of 
revelation iv 7roo<£r/Tais has its climax ev vlw, in a Son whose 
redeeming sacrifice was the real and effective manifestation of 
God's mind for communion. 

As it is necessary to break up this elaborate sentence for the 
purpose of exposition, I print it not only in Greek but in the 
stately Vulgate version, in order to exhibit at the very outset 
the style and spirit of IIpos 'Ey3oatovs. 


IIoXi'/uepcDs Kal iroXiirpbiruis ird\ai 6 Multifariam et multis modis olim 

6ebs \a\7j<ras roh warpdciv iv rois Deus loquens patribus in prophetis 

irpo(pT)Tai.s iir iax^- rov T & v yp-ep&v novissime diebus istis locutus est 

tovtcov iXdXrjo-ev tjixIv iv vlip, 6v 26r)Ke nobis in filio, quern constituit 

KXrjpovbixov vdvTwv, 6Y ov Kal iiroi^cre heredem universorum, per quern 

toik aluivas' 8s wv diravyaaLia ttjs db^rjs fecit et saecula, qui cum sit 

Kal x a P aKT VP r V* virocrrdaeuis avrov, splendor gloriae et figura substantiae 

cpipwv re rd vavra rip prj/xari ttjs eius, portans quoque omnia verbo 

SuvdfMus avrov, Kadapta/xbv rwv diiap- virtutis suae, purgationem pecca- 

riwv iroLT]<rdp.ei>os itcdBurev iv 5e£i<} torum faciens, sedit ad dexteram 

rrjs fieyaXwcrvvrji iv v^-qXoh, roaovrcp majestatis in excelsis, tanto melior 

Kpeirruv ycvb/j.evos T&v dyyiXwv beep angelis effectus quanto differen- 

5ia<popu>repov irap' avroiis K£KXrjpov6- tius prae illis nomen heredit- 

fj.i]Kfv 6vo/j.a. avit. 

1 Many were the forms and fashions in which God spoke of old to our 
fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these days at the end he has spoken to us by a 
Son — a Son whom he has appointed heir of the universe, as it was by him 
that he created the world. 

Greek prefaces and introductions of a rhetorical type were 
fond of opening with tto\v<; in some form or other (e.g. Sirach 
prol. ttoXXwv kol /xeyaXoiv kt\. ; Dion. Halic. de oratoribus antiquis, 
iroWrjv x^P lv kt^-; an early instance being the third Philippic of 
Demosthenes, ttoWwv, & dVopes 'AOrjvcuoi, \6ywv yiyvofxivw ktX.). 
Here TroXu/Acpws Kal iroXuTpoirus is a sonorous hendiadys for 
" variously," as Chrysostom was the first to point out (t6 yap 
iroXvixzpus kcu 7roXvrpo7rws tovtco-ti Siacpopws). A similar turn of 
expression occurs in 2 2 irapafido-is /ecu izapaKo-q. The writer does 
not mean to exclude variety from the Christian revelation ; he 
expressly mentions how rich and manysided it was, in 2 4 . Nor 
does he suggest that the revelation iv 7rpo<p?/rais was inferior 
because it was piecemeal and varied. There is a slight sugges- 
tion of the unity and finality of the revelation e'v vlw, as compared 
with the prolonged revelations made through the prophets, the 
Son being far more than a prophet ; but there is a deeper 
suggestion of the unity and continuity of revelation then and 
now. IIoAu/Aepws »cai 7roAvTpo7rws really " signalises the variety 
and fulness of the Old Testament word of God " (A. B. David- 
son). On the other hand, Christ is God's last word to the world ; 
revelation in him is complete, final and homogeneous. 

Compare the comment of Eustathius on Odyssey, I 1 : iroXvrpbirus dveyvup- 
Iffdrj wdfftv oh TjXOev eh yt>u>o~iv, firjdevbs dvayvcopt.crfj.ou avp.ireabvros iripco 
dvayvcopicrntZ rb ffvvoXov &XXo)s yap rip leXepcdxip, iripus Si EvpVKXela, iripcos 
rois SouXois, &\\ov Si Tpdirov rep Aaiprrj, Kal SXujs dvoiioica^ &irao~i. IloXvfxepuis, 
according to Hesychius (= 7ro\wrx^5c<>s), differs from iro\vrp6iruii (Sia<popws, 
ttoikIXws), and, strictly speaking, is the adverb of iroXvfxepris = manifold (Wis 
7 22 , where Wisdom is called irvev/na /xovoyevis, iroXvixepis). But no such dis- 
tinction is intended here. 

In irdXcu (as Opposed to iir ia-\a.Tov twv rj/xipiov tovtw) 
Qeo$ XciXrjcras, XaXeir, here as throughout the epistle, is prac- 


tically an equivalent for Xe'yctv (see Anz's Subsidia, pp. 309-310), 
with a special reference to inspired and oracular utterances of 
God or of divinely gifted men. This sense is as old as 
Menander (6 vov% yap 1<ttiv 6 XaXija-oyv #eos, Kock's Comic. 
Attic. Fragm. 70). 01 iraTepe; in contrast to rjp.eis means OT 
believers in general (cp. Jn 6 58 7 22 ), whereas the more usual 
NT sense of the term is "the patriarchs" (cp. Diat. 1949-1950, 
2553*), i.e. Abraham, etc., though the term (3° 8 9 ) covers the 
ancients down to Samuel or later (Mt 23 30 ). Our fathers or 
ancestors (Wis 18 6 ) means the Hebrew worthies of the far 
past to whom Christians as God's People, whether they had been 
born Jews or not (1 Co io 1 01 Trarepcs 17/uuv), look back, as the 
earlier Sirach did in his Trarepwv v/xvos (Sir 44 1 ~5o 23 ), or the pro- 
phet in Zee I 5 (oi 7raTep€S ip.wv . . . xal oi irpocprJTai). For 01 

7raT€pes = our fathers, cp. Prayer of Manasseh x (debs tw irarepwy) 
and Wessely's Studien zur Paldographie und Papyruskunde, i. 64, 
where boys are reckoned in a list o-vv tois -n-aTpdo-i. The inser- 
tion of r]p.oiv (p 12 999. 1836 boh sah Clem. Alex., Chrys. Pris- 
cillian) is a correct but superfluous gloss. As for iv tois Trpo^- 
tcus, TrpocprJTaL is used here in a broader sense than in n 32 ; it 
denotes the entire succession of those who spoke for God to the 
People of old, both before and after Moses (Ac 3 22 7 3r ), who is 
the supreme prophet, according to Philo {de ebriet. 21, de decalogo 
33). Joshua is a prophet (Sir 46 1 ), so is David (Philo, de agric. 
12). In Ps 105 15 the patriarchs, to whom revelations are made, 
are both God's Trpocprjrai and xP LaT °^ Later on, the term was 
extended, as in Lk 13 28 (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, kou irdvra<; 
tous Trpocj^ras, cp. He 11 32 ), and still more in Mt 5 12 (tous 
Trpo<pr)Ta<; tons 7rp6 v/xw). The reason why there is no contrast 
between the Son and the prophets is probably because the 
writer felt there was no danger of rivalry ; prophecy had ceased 
by the time that the Son came ; the "prophet" belonged to a 
bygone order of things, so that there was no need to argue 
against any misconception of their function in relation to that of 
the Son (Bar 85 1 " 3 "in former times our fathers had helpers, 
righteous men and holy prophets . . . but now the righteous 
have been gathered and the prophets have fallen asleep "). 

As no further use is made of the contrast between Jesus and 
the prophets (who are only again mentioned incidentally in n 32 ), 
it was natural that dyye'Aois should be conjectured (S. Crellius, 
Initium Ioannis Evangelii restitutum, p. 238, independently by 
Spitta in Stud. u. Kritiken, 19 13, pp. 106-109) to have been the 
original reading, instead of irpo<prjT ats. But " the word spoken 
by angels" (2 2 ) does not refer to divine communications made 
to the patriarchs ; nor can oi 7raTe'pes be identified with the 
patriarchs, as Spitta contends (cf. U. Holzmeister in Zeitschrift 


fiir kathol. Theologie, 191 3, pp. 805-830), and, even if it could, 
trpo^rjfra.1% would be quite apposite (cp. Philo, de Abrah. 22). 
Why the writer selects 7rpo<^rat? is not clear. But dv6pdiiroi<; 
would have been an imperfect antithesis, since the Son was 
human. Philo (de Monarch. 9 : ipp.r)veL<; yap clcriv 61 TrpocprJTaL 
Oeov KaTa^pu)/ji€vov TOts iKtivuv opyavois irpbs hrjXuxriv gov av i6e\ijcrr]) 

views the prophets as interpreters of God in a sense that might 
correspond to the strict meaning of iv, and even (Quaest. in Exod. 
23 22 tov yap Aeyovros 6 Trpo<pr)T7]% ayyeAos nvpiov icrriv) applies 
ayyeXos to the prophet. But iv here is a synonym for 81a. 

(Chrys. opa? on /cat to iv Sia iartv), as in I S 28 s (dir€Kp[Qr) avrai 
Kvptos iv tois ivvTrvioiS kcu iv tois S77A.01S fat iv tois TrpocprjTais). 

In Test. Dan i 1 [ace. to the tenth cent. Paris MS 938] x 
and in LXX of Nu 24 14 , Jer 23 20 [B : ^o- X arw, A Q*], 25 19 ( 49 39 ) 
[B : 6o- X a7w, A Q], 37 (30) 24 [A Q : eo- X a™v, B], Ezk 38 s (eV 

60-^aTou trail'), Dn IO 14 [eo- X ara> ? eo-^arajv], Hos 3 s [Q], «r 

cV^arou twv fj/xepiov appears, instead of the more common iir 
io-xdriav tuJv rj/xepwv, as a rendering of the phrase D^O'n rvnnxa. 

A similar variety of reading occurs here ; Origen, e.g., reads 
ia-\a.TO)v without tovtiov (on La 4 20 ) and «r X aTou (fragm. on John 
3 31 ), while ia-xdroiv is read by 044, a few minor cursives, d and 
the Syriac version. The same idea is expressed in 1 P i 20 by 
«7r' ccr X aToi> Ta ' v XP° V01V > but t ne tovtwv here is unique. The 
messianic mission of Jesus falls at the close of these days, or, as 
the writer says later (9 26 ), e7ri awreXeiq, twv alwvwv. These days 
correspond to the present age (6 vvv alwv) ; the age (or world) to 
come (6 piAAwv alu>v, 6 5 ) is to dawn at the second coming of 
Christ (9 28 io 37 ). Meantime, the revelation of God iv vlw has 
been made to the Christian church as God's People (eXaXr/o-cv ; the -^/xets does not mean simply the hearers of Jesus on 
earth, for this would exclude the writer and his readers (2 3 ), and 
cWaA-T/crev covers more than the earthly mission of Jesus. There 
is no special reference in iXdXrja-ev to the teaching of Jesus ; 
the writer is thinking of the revelation of God's redeeming pur- 
pose in Christ as manifested (vv. 3 * 4 ) by the (resurrection and) 
intercession in heaven which completed the sacrifice on the 
cross. This is the final revelation, now experienced by Christians. 

The saying of Jesus quoted by Epiphanius {Haer. xxiii. 5, xli. 3, lxvi 42), 
6 XaXuJ* 1 iv roh irpcxprirais, iSou irapei/j.1, was an anti-gnostic logion based 
partly on this passage and partly on Is 52 s i~yd) el/xi avrbs 6 \a\wv, napei/xi. 
The author of Hebrews is not conscious of any polemic against the OT 
revelation as inferior to and unworthy of the Christian God. He assumes 
that it was the same God who spoke in both Testaments : " Sed in hac 
diversitate unum tamen Deus nobis proponit : nequis putet Legem cum 
Evangelio pugnare, vel alium esse huius quam illius authorem " (Calvin). 

1 The Armenian reading tovtwv after ij/xepwv, instead of avrov, is incorrect, 
and may even be a reminiscence of He I 1 , 


In ov leTjKei' KXtipoyofAoy irdvToyv there is a parallel, perhaps 
even an allusion, to the Synoptic parable : finally he sent his son 
(Mt 2 1 27 ), or, as Mark (12 6 ) and Luke (20 13 ) explicitly declare, 
his beloved son, though our author does not work out the sombre 
thought of the parable. There, the son is the heir (oCto's ia-nv 6 
K\r)pov6/j.o<;), though not of the universe. Here, the meaning of 
ov iOrjuev K\y]pov6fxov wavruv is the same : he was " appointed " 
heir, he was heir by God's appointment. It is the fact of this 
position, not the time, that the writer has in mind, and we 
cannot be sure that this "appointment" corresponds to the 
elevation of v. 3 (eKd6«rev). Probably, in our modern phrase, it 
describes a pre-temporal act, or rather a relationship which 
belongs to the eternal order. The force of the aorist ZdrjKev is 
best rendered by the English perfect, "has appointed"; no 
definite time is necessarily intended. 

" Nam ideo ille haeres, ut nos suis opibus ditet. Quin hoc elogio nunc 
eum ornat Apostolus ut sciamus nos sine ipso bonorum omnium esse inopes " 
(Calvin). The reflection of Sedulius Scotus (alii post patrem haeredes sunt, 
hie autem vivente Patre haeres est) is pious but irrelevant, for KX-qpovo^tlv 
in Hellenistic Greek had come to mean, like its equivalent "inherit" in 
Elizabethan English, no more than "possess" or "obtain"; a kXtjpoi'^os 
was a "possessor," with the double nuance of certainty and anticipation. 
" Haeres" in Latin acquired the same sense; "pro haerede gerere est pro 
domino gerere, veteres enim 'haeredes' pro 'dominis' appellabant" 
(Justinian, Instit. ii. 19. 7). 

In 81' ou (Gfiesbach conj. Sioti) ica! ciroiTjae tous aioWas the 
ko.1 especially x suggests a correspondence between this and the 
preceding statement ; what the Son was to possess was what he 
had been instrumental in making. Tovs aiwvas here, though 
never in Paul, is equivalent (EBi. 1147) to i-a 7ravra in v. 3 
(implied in tt6.vtu,v above), i.e. the universe or world (n 3 ). The 
functions assigned by Jewish speculation to media like the Logos 
at creation are here claimed as the prerogative of the Son. This 
passing allusion to the function of Christ in relation to the 
universe probably originated, as in the case of Paul, in the re- 
ligious conception of redemption. From the redeeming function 
of Christ which extended to all men, it was natural to infer His 
agency in relation to creation as part of his pre-existence. The 
notion is that " the whole course of nature and grace must find 
its explanation in God, not merely in an abstract divine 
arbitrium, but in that which befits the divine nature" (W. 
Robertson Smith), i.e. the thought behind 2 9f - is connected with 
the thought behind i 1 ' 3 . This may be due to a theological re- 
flection, but the tendency to emphasize the moral rather than 
the metaphysical aspect, which is noticeable in IIpos 'E/3/Wovs as 

1 An emphasis blurred by the tovs alwfas iirol-qaev of D b K L P hark) 
Chrys. Theod. (Blass, von Sod.). 


in the Fourth Gospel, and even in Paul, is consonant with Philo's 
tendency to show the function of the Logos and the other inter- 
mediate powers as religious rather than cosmical (cp. Brevier's 
Les /dees Philos. et Religieuses de Philon cPAlexandrie, pp. 65 f., 
inf., 152, "il ne s'agit plus chez Philon d'un explication du 
nionde mais du culte divin"; 174 f., "la thdse de Philon, qui 
explique et produit la doctrine des intermediaires, n'est pas 
l'impossibilite pour Dieu de produire le monde mais l'impossibilite' 
pour Fame d'atteindre Dieu directement"). Yet Philo had 
repeatedly claimed for his Logos, that it was the organ of 
creation (e.g. de sacerdot. 5, Adyos 8' eortv e'u<uv 6cov, 81 ov 
crvfxTra's 6 koct/hos i8rjfxiovpyeiTo), and this is what is here, as by 
Paul, claimed for Christ. Only, it is a religious, not a cosmo- 
logical, instinct that prompts the thought. The early Christian, 
who believed in the lordship of Christ over the world, felt, as a 
modern would put it, that the end must be implicit in the be- 
ginning, that the aim and principle of the world must be essenti- 
ally Christian. This is not elaborated in " Hebrews " any more 
than in the Fourth Gospel (Jn i 3 ) ; the author elsewhere prefers 
the simple monotheistic expression (2 10 n 3 ). But the idea is 
consonant with his conception of the Son. " If pre-existence is 
a legitimate way of expressing the absolute significance of Jesus, 
then the mediation of creation through Christ is a legitimate 
way of putting the conviction that in the last resort, and in spite 
of appearances, the world in which we live is a Christian world, 
our ally, not our adversary" (Denney in ERE. viii. 5i6f.). 

3 He (5s &v) reflecting God's bright glory and stamped with Gods own 
character, sustains the universe with his word of potver ; when he had 
secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the 
Majesty on high ; 4 and thus he is superior to (Kpelrruv) the angels, as he has 
inherited a Name superior (SiCMpopdiTepov, 8 6 ) to theirs. 

The unique relation of Christ to God is one of the unborrowed 
truths of Christianity, but it is stated here in borrowed terms. 
The writer is using metaphors which had been already applied in 
Alexandrian theology to Wisdom and the Logos. Thus Wisdom 
is an unalloyed emanation rrjs tov TravTOKpaTopos Sd£?;s, dvavyao-pa 
. . . (pcuTos alSiov (Wis 7 25 - 2a ), and a7rai;yao-yu.a in the same sense 
of "reflection" occurs in Philo, who describes the universe as 

olov dyi'tov a.Travyaap.a, ap^iTVTrov (de plant. 1 2), the human 
spirit as ti>7tov tivo. koX ^apaKTrjpa 0eias 8vvdp.€w<s (quod deter, pot. 

ins. sol. 83), and similarly the Logos. x a P aKT VP ls "the exact 
reproduction," as a statue of a person (OGIS. 363 60 \apaKTyjpa 
p.op<pr)<; ip.rj<;) ; literally, the stamp or clear-cut impression made 
by a seal, the very facsimile of the original. Tiie two terms 
airavyaa-p-a and \apaKT-qp are therefore intended to bring out the 
same idea. 


xiiroo-Taerts = the being or essence of God, which corresponds to his 5<5fa 
(= character or nature) ; it is a philosophical rather than a religious term, in 
this connexion, but enters the religious world in Wis l6 21 (t; /xev yap inrd- 
araals ffov kt\. ). Its physical sense emerges in the contemporary de A/undo, 4, 
tQiv iv atpi (pavTacrfj.drwv ra. ntv ian /car' tfj.<pa<riv ra 5e Kad' virdaratjiv. The 
use of it as a term for the essence or substance of a human being is not un- 
common in the LXX (e.g. Ps 39/ 139 16 ) ; cp. Schlatter's Der Glattbe im NT* 
(1905), pp. 615 f . , where the linguistic data are arranged. 

XapaKTi^p had already acquired a meaning corresponding to the modern 
" character " (e.g. in Menander's proverb, dvdpbs x a P aKT VP ^ K X6yov yvojpi^erai, 
Heauton Timoroumenos, 11). The idea of x«-P aKT Vp as replica is further illus- 
trated by the Bereschith rabba, 52. 3 (on Gn 21 2 ) : " hence we learn that he 
(Isaac) was the splendour of his (father's) face, as like as possible to him." 

An early explanation of this conception is given by Lactantius (diuin. 
instit. iv. 29), viz. that "the Father is as it were an overflowing fountain, 
the Son like a stream flowing from it ; the Father like the sun, the Son as it 
were a ray extended from the sun (radius ex sole porrectus). Since he is 
faithful (cp. He 3 2 ) and dear to the most High Father, he is not separated 
from him, any more than the stream is from the fountain or the ray from 
the sun ; for the water of the fountain is in the stream, and the sun's light in 
the ray." But our author is content to throw out his figurative expressions. 
How the Son could express the character of God, is a problem which he does 
not discuss ; it is felt by the author of the Fourth Gospel, who suggests the 
moral and spiritual affinities that lie behind such a function of Jesus Christ, 
by hinting that the Son on earth taught what he had heard from the Father 
and lived out the life he had himself experienced and witnessed with the 
unseen Father. This latter thought is present to the mind of Seneca in 
Epp. 6 5, 6 , where he observes that " Cleanthes could never have exactly re- 
produced Zeno, if he had simply listened to him ; he shared the life of Zeno, 
he saw into his secret purposes" (vitae eius interfuit, secreta perspexit). The 
author of Hebrews, like Paul in Col I 15 * 17 , contents himself with asserting 
the vital community of nature between the Son and God, in virtue of which 
((pipwv re) the Son holds his position in the universe. 

In the next clause, fyepwv x re to, irdrra is not used in the sense 
in which Sappho (fragm. 95, 7mvTa cpepwv) speaks of the evening 
star " bringing all things home," the sheep to their fold and 
children to their mother. The phrase means " upholding the 
universe as it moves," bearing it and bearing it on. "Thou 
bearest things on high and things below," Cain tells God in 
Bereschith rabba, 23. 2, " but thou dost not bear my sins." 
" Deus ille maximus potentissimusque ipse vehit omnia" (Seneca, 
Epist. 3 1 10 ). The idea had been already applied by Philo to the 
Logos (e.g. de migrat. Abrah. 6, 6 Xoyos ... 6 tw oXojv Kvfiep- 
i'tjtt/s TTTjSaXtou^ct Ta (TvfxvavTa : de spec, legibus, i. 81, Xoyos 8 iarlv 
etKwv 6eov, 6V ov crvfJLTras 6 koo"/xos i8r]fuovpyeiro : de plant. 8, Xoyos 
Z\ 6 aiStos 6eov tou alwviov to o^ypwrarov /cat j3ef3ai.OTa.TOV epeio-fxa 

tw oXoiv €o-Tt). So Chrysostom takes it : <p£pwv . . . tovt£o-ti, 
KvftepvUiv, to. SiairLTTTovTa o-vyxpaTwv. It would certainly carry on 
the thought of oV ou . . . alwvas, however, if (pipeiv here could 
be taken in its regular Philonic sense of "bring into existence" 
(e g. quis rer. div. haer. 7, 6 Ta p.y oVra (fiipwv kol to. vavTa ycviajv : 
1 (pavepwv is, like a-rroXeiTcu in 4 9 , an error of B*. 


de mutat. nom. 44, irdvTa cpe'pwv airovSaua 6 6(6%) ; this was the 
interpretation of Gregory of Nyssa (MPG. xlvi. 265), and it would 
give a better sense to "word of power" as the fiat of creative 
authority. But the ordinary interpretation is not untenable. 

In tu> prijAOTi tt}s 8i>vd|X£us avrov, the avrov (avrov ?) refers to the Son, 
not as in the preceding clause and in n 3 to God. Hence perhaps its omission 
by M 424** 1739 Origen. 

With Kctdapio-fAoi' . . . ui|/T)Xot9 the writer at last touches what 
is for him the central truth about the Son ; it is not the teaching 
of Jesus that interests him, but what Jesus did for sin by his 
sacrifice and exaltation. From this conception the main argu- 
ment of the epistle flows. KaOapia/xov twv apaprcwv is a Septua- 
gint expression (e.g. Job 7 21 iroir]<rw . . . ("Uy) rrjs 

d/taprias p-ov), though this application of k. to sins is much more 
rare than that either to persons (Lv 15 13 ) or places (1 Ch 23 26 , 
2 Mac IO 5 ). In 2 Pi 9 (tov Ka.6api.crp.ov tujv rrd\ai avrov apapriwv) 
it is filled out with the possessive pronoun, which is supplied here 
by some (e.g. 17/AuJv D c K L harkl sah arm Athan. Chrys., vpwv X c ). 
Grammatically it = (a) purgation of sins, as Ka6apt(io may be used 
of the "removal" of a disease (Mt 8 3 - 4 ), or = (£)our cleansing 
from sins (9 14 Ka6apiel ttjv crvveiSyjcnv rjpu>v drrb ve/cpcov Ipycov). 
Before Ka6apio-p.6v the words 8Y kavrov (airov) are inserted by 
DHKLM 256 d harkl sah boh eth Orig. Athan. Aug. etc. 
At* £avroO= ipse, as eavTa! = sua sponte. 'EKa#io-€v iv Sc^ia is a 
reminiscence of a favourite psalm (no 1 ) of the writer, though he 
avoids its Ik 8e$iwv. It denotes entrance into a position of divine 
authority. " Sedere ad Patris dexteram nihil aliud est quam 
gubernare vice Patris " (Calvin). 'Ev £1/^7X019, a phrase used by 
no other NT writer, is a reminiscence of the Greek psalter and 
equivalent to lv wi/u'otois : grammatically it goes with li<a6io-ev. 
(The divine attribute of p-eyaXiDo-vvrj is for the first time employed 
as a periphrasis for the divine Majesty.) This enthronement 
exhibits (v. 4 ) the superiority of the Son to the angels. "Ovopa is 
emphatic by its position at the close of the sentence ; it carries 
the general Oriental sense of " rank " or " dignity." The 
precise nature of this dignity is described as that of sonship (v. 5 ), 
but the conception widens in the following passage (vv. 6f -), and 
it is needless to identify 6vop.a outright with uids, though vies 
brings out its primary meaning. In too-outw Kpei-rrw^ y €l 'OH- €l ' s 
(going closely with iKadiaev) tw (accidentally omitted by B and 
Clem. Rom.) dyyikuv (emphatic by position) imp' au-rous kckXt]- 
po^op.rjKei' o^op.a, the relative use of octos in NT Greek is con- 
fined to Mk 7 36 , but too-ovtos . . . ocros is a common Philonic 
expression. Kpa'rrw (for which Clement of Rome in 36 s sub- 
stitutes the synonymous /xet^wv) is an indefinite term = " superior.' 1 


Unlike Paul, the writer here and elsewhere is fond of using irapa 

after a comparative. 

KpeiTTuv in this sense occurs in the contemporary (?) Aristotelian treatise 
de A/undo, 391a (5id rd adiaroi. tQiv Kpurrdvwv elvai), where to. KpeiTTbvo. 
means the nobler Universe. 

The sudden transition to a comparison between the Son and 
the angels implies that something is before the writer's mind. 
Were his readers, like the Colossians to whom Paul wrote, in 
danger of an undue deference to angels in their religion, a 
deference which threatened to impair their estimate of Christ ? 
Or is he developing his argument in the light of some contem- 
porary belief about angels and revelation? Probably the latter, 
though this does not emerge till 2 2 . Meanwhile, seven Biblical 
proofs (cp. W. Robertson Smith, Expositor'*, i. pp. 5 f.) of v. 4 are 
adduced ; the two in v. 5 specially explain the StacfiopwTepor 
ovojxa, while the five in vv. 6 - 14 describe the meaning and force of 
K/aeirrwv tui' dyye'Awv. The first two are : 

B For to what angel did God ever say, 
" Thou art my son, 
to-day have I become thy father * f 
Or again, 

" / will be a father to him, 
and he shall be a son to me " ? 

The first quotation is from the 2nd Psalm (v. 7 ), read as a 
messianic prediction — which may have been its original meaning, 
and certainly was the meaning attached to it by the early Chris- 
tians, if not already by some circles of Judaism : 1 

v\6s fJLOV €1 (TV, 

iyw <ryjfj.epov ycyevvrjKa. 0"e. 

Did the author take (rr)\xepov here, as perhaps in 3 7f -, though not 
in 13 8 , in (a) a mystical sense, or (d) with a reference to some 
special phase in the history of Christ? (a) tallies with Philo's 
usage : (rqp.epov 8' ecrriv 6 aTreparos ko.1 aSu^LT-qro 1 ; alwv ... to 
di/reuSc? ovop.a aiwvos (de fuga, 1 1, on Dt 4 4 ), ews tj/s crrjp.(pov 
i^/iepas, TovridTLv aei' o yap alwv a7ras tw arjpiepov trapapLeT peirai 
(leg. at/eg. iii. 8 on Gn 35 4 ). (6) might allude either to the bap- 
tism or to the resurrection of Christ in primitive Christian usage ; 
the latter would be more congenial to our author, if it were 
assumed that he had any special incident in mind. But he 
simply quotes the text for the purpose of bringing out the title of 
Son as applied to Christ. When we ask what he meant by 
crr/p-epov, we are asking a question which was not present to his 
mind, unless, indeed, " the idea of a bright radiance streaming 
forth from God's glory " (v. 3 ) pointed in the direction of (a), as 
1 See G. H. Box, The Ezra- Apocalypse, pp. lvi, lvii. 


Robertson Smith thought. But the second line of the verse is 
merely quoted to fill out the first, which is the pivot of the proof: 
vios /xov €* av. Sons of God is not unknown as a title for angels 
in the Hebrew Old Testament (see EBi. 4691). "Sometimes 
Moses calls the angels sons of God," Philo observes {Quaest. in 
Gen. 6 4 — as being bodiless spirits). But the LXX is careful to 
translate : " sons of Elohim " by ayycAoi dtov {e.g. in Gn 6 2, 4 , 
Job i 6 2 1 38 7 ), except in Ps 29 1 and 89 7 , where sons of God are 
intended by the translator to denote human beings ; and no indi- 
vidual angel is ever called mos. 1 As the author of Ilpd? 'E/?paiovs 
and his readers knew only the Greek Bible, the proof holds good. 
The second quotation is from 2 S 7 14 : 

'Eyu> ecro/xai avrw eis iraripa, 
kol ttvro? Icrrai fx.01 els vlov, 

a promise cited more exactly than in 2 Co 6 18 and Rev 21 7 , but 
with equal indifference to its original setting. Paul and the 
prophet John apply it to the relationship between God and 
Christians ; our author prefers to treat it as messianic. Indeed 
he only alludes twice, in OT quotations, to God as the Father 
of Christians (see Introd. p. xxxv). 

The third quotation (v. 6 ) clinches this proof of Christ's unique 
authority and opens up the sense in which he is KpuTrwv tw 
dyye'Awi' : 

and further, when introducing the Firstborn into the world, he says, 
" Let all God's angels worship him" 

In oTae he ttoKiv elo-aydyr\ the term 77-dAiv, rhetorically trans- 
ferred, answers to the 7rJ/W of v. 5 ; it is not to be taken with 
eio-ayay]7 = " reintroduce," as if the first "introduction" of the 
Son had been referred to in v. 2f \ A good parallel for this usage 
occurs in Philo (leg. alleg. iii. 9 : 6 8e irdXiv d-n-oStSpdaKwv 6ehv 
tov ovSevos cunov (prjalv elvai, where 7raAiv goes with <^?;o-tV). 
Ettrayeiv might refer to birth, 2 as, e.g., in Epictetus (iv. 1. 104, 
oi>xi e/ceti'ds (re eicr^yayev) and pseudo-Musonius, ep. 90 (Her- 
cher's Epist. Graeci, 401 f. : ov t£kvol ixovov eis to yeVos aAAa /cat 
ToiaSe reKva £to-»;yaycs), or simply to "introduction" (cp. Mitteis- 
Wilcken, i. 2. 141 (1 IO B.C.), eicra^w tov ifxavTov vlov eis ti]v uvvohov). 
Linguistically either the incarnation or the second advent might 
be intended ; but neither the tense of do-aydyr) (unless it be 
taken strictly as futuristic = ubi introduxerit) nor the proximity of 

1 It is only Theodotion who ventures in Dan 3-' ,i,2) to retain the literal 
son, since from his christological point of view it could not be misunderstood 
in this connexion. 

2 Cp. M. Aurelius, v. I, voieiv &v ZveKtv yifova ko.1 uiv x°-P lv vpo^yinai d% 
rbv k6<t/j.ov. 


iraXiv is decisive in favour of the latter (oVav tlaaydyy might, 
by a well-known Greek idiom, be equivalent to "when he speaks 
of introducing, or, describes the introduction of" — Valckenaer, 
etc.). IIpwTOTo/cos is Firstborn in the sense of superior. The 
suggestion of Christ being higher than angels is also present in 
the context of the term as used by Paul (Col i 15 - 16 ), but it is 
nowhere else used absolutely in the NT, and the writer here 
ignores any inference that might be drawn from it to an inferior 
sonship of angels. Its equivalent (cp. the v. II. in Sir 36 17 ) Trpwro- 
yovos is applied by Philo to the Logos. Here it means that 
Christ was Son in a pre-eminent sense ; the idea of priority 
passes into that of superiority. A ttputotokos vlos had a relation- 
ship of likeness and nearness to God which was unrivalled. As 
the context indicates, the term brings out the pre-eminent honour 
and the unique relationship to God enjoyed by the Son among 
the heavenly host. 

The notion of worship being due only to a senior reappears in the Vila 
Adae et Evae (14), where the devil declines to worship Adam : " I have no 
need to worship Adam ... I will not worship an inferior being who is my 
junior. I am his senior in the Creation ; before he was made, I was already 
made; it is his duty to worship me." In the Ascensio Isaiae (ll 23f- ) the 
angels humbly worship Christ as he ascends through the heavens where they 
live ; here the adoration is claimed for him as he enters 77 oikov/x{v7]. 

The line icat TrpocrKuvrja-dTacrcn' ciutw irdrrcs ayyeXoi 0eoo comes 
from a LXX addition to the Hebrew text of the Song of Moses 
in Dt 32 43 , calling upon all angels to pay homage to Yahweh. 
But the LXX text 1 actually reads viol Oeov, not ayyeAoi 6eov 
(into which F corrects it) ! Our author probably changed it into 
ayyeXoi deov, recollecting the similar phrase in Ps 97"" (irpoo-Kv- 
vrjaaTe aura) 7rdvres 01 iyyeXoi airov), 2 unless, indeed, the change 
had been already made. The fact that Justin Martyr {Dial. 130) 
quotes the LXX gloss with ayyeAoi, is an indication that this may 
have been the text current among the primitive Christians. 

The last four (vv. 7-14 ) quotations carry on the idea of the 
Son's superiority to the angels : 

7 While he says of angels (7rp6s = with reference to), 

" Who makes his angels into winds, 
his servants into flames of fire" 

8 he says of the Son, 

" God is thy throne for ever and ever, 
and thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity : 
9 thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, 
therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee 
with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades " — 
10 and, 

" Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, O Lord, 

1 As the song appears in A, at the close of the psalter, the reading is 
dyyeXoi (viol, R). 

2 Which acquired a messianic application (see Diat. 3134). 


and the heavens are the work of thy hands: 

11 they will perish, but thou remainest, 
they will all be worn out like a garment, 

12 thou wilt roll them up like a mantle, and they will be changed, 
but thou art the same, 

and thy years never fail." 

In V. 7 the quotation (6 ttoluv tov<s ayyeXovs airov irvev/xaTa\ 
kol tous Aeiroupyous avrov 7rupos cpXoya) only differs from the LXX 
by the substitution of irvpbs (pXoya 1 for irvp <pXeyov (B : 7rvpos 
cpXeya A a ). The singular in <p\6ya and perhaps the recollection 
that Trvevfxa elsewhere in NT = " wind" only in the singular, 
led to the change of 7rveu/i.a.Ta into 7rve9/xa (D i. 326. 424**. 1912. 
1245. 2005 d sah eth Orig.). The author is taking the LXX 
translation or mistranslation of Ps 104 4 (6 ttolwv ktX., a nomina- 
tive without a verb, as in 1 Co 3 19 ) to mean that God can reduce 
angels to the elemental forces of wind and fire, so unstable is 
their nature, whereas the person and authority of the Son are 
above all change and decay. The meaning might also be that 
God makes angels out of wind and fire ; 2 but this is less apt. 
Our author takes the same view as the author of 4 Esdras, who 
(8 21 ) writes : 

" Before whom the heavenly host stands in terror, 
and at thy word change to wind and fire." 

Rabbinic traditions corroborate this interpretation ; e.g. " every 
day ministering angels are created from the fiery stream, and 
they utter a song and perish " (Chagiga, ed. Streane, p. 76), and 
the confession of the angel to Manoah in Yalkut Shimeoni, ii. 
11. 3: " God changes us every hour . . . sometimes he makes 
us fire, at other times wind." 

The interest of rabbinic mysticism in the nature of angels is illustrated by 
the second century dialogue between Hadrian, that " curiositatum omnium 
explorator," and R. Joshua ben Chananja (cp. W. Bacher, Agada der 
Tannailen 2 , i. 171-172). The emperor asks the rabbi what becomes of the 
angels whom God creates daily to sing His praise ; the rabbi answers that 
they return to the stream of fire which flows eternally from the sweat shed 
by the Beasts supporting the divine throne or chariot (referring to the vision 
of Ezekiel and the " fiery stream " of Dn 7 10 ). From this stream of fire the 
angels issue, and to it they return. Aeirovpyovs of angels as in Ps 103 21 
(Xeirovpyol avrov, iroiovvres rb di\7]fia avrov). 

The fifth (vv. 8 - 9 ) quotation is from Ps 45 7 - 8 — a Hebrew 
epithalamium for some royal personage or national hero, which 
our author characteristically regards as messianic. 

1 Aquila has wvp \d(3pov, Symm. trvpLv-qv (p\6ya. 

2 As in Apoc. Bar. 2I 6 (" the holy creatures which thou didst make from 
the beginning out of flame and fire") and 48 s (" Thou givest commandment 
to the flames and they change into spirits ''). 


6 6p6vo% crov 6 6eos ei9 tov alwva tov aiwvos, 

Kal l pa/3So9 tt)s tv9vTr)TO<; r) pa/5Sos tt/9 /JacrtAeias crov. 2 

rjydnrjcras biKaiocrvvrjv Kal e/xtcrr^cras dro/xiav" 

8ta TOVTO €\pLCT€ <T€ O #£09, 6 #£09 CTOV, 

lAaioi' dyaAAiacrcws 7rapa 3 tov9 /^£to^ov9 crov. 

The quotation inserts t^9 before cvOvTrjTos, follows A in pre- 
ferring tov alwva tov aia>vo9 (tov aiwvo9 om. B 33) to aiiova aiwvos 
(B), but prefers 4 B's avofxiav (cp. 2 Co 6 14 ) to A's dcufuav, and 
agrees with both in prefixing 17 to the second (D K L P Cyr. Cosm. 
Dam.) instead of to the first (NABM, etc.) f>d/38os. The psalm 
is not quoted elsewhere in NT (apart from a possible remini- 
scence of 45 5 - 6 in Rev 6 2 ), and rarely cited in primitive Christian 
literature, although the messianic reference reappears in Irenaeus 
(iv. 34. 11, quoting v. 2 ). '0 8e6s (sc lariv rather than Ictto)) may 
be (a) nominative (subject or predicate). This interpretation 
(" God is thy throne," or, " thy throne is God "), which was 
probably responsible for the change of crov after /foo-iAetas into 
avrov (N B), has been advocated, e.g., by Grotius, Ewald 
("thy throne is divine"), WH ("founded on God, the im- 
movable Rock"), and Wickham ("represents God"). Tyndale's 
rendering is, " God thy seat shall be." Those who find this 
interpretation harsh prefer to (b) take 6 c^eo'9 as a vocative, which 
grammatically is possible ( = u» 6ee, cp. io 7 and Ps 3 8 138 17 etc.) ; 
" Thy throne, O God (or, O divine One), is for ever and ever." 
This (so sah vg, etc.) yields an excellent sense, and may well 
explain the attractiveness of the text for a writer who wished to 
bring out the divine significance of Christ ; 6 6e6<; appealed to 
him like Kvpie in the first line of the next quotation. The sense 
would be clear if 6 6e6<s were omitted altogether, as its Hebrew 
equivalent ought to be in the original ; but the LXX text as it 
stands was the text before our author, and the problem is 
to decide which interpretation he followed, (b) involves the 
direct application of 6 (9eos to the Son, which, in a poetical quota- 
tion, is not perhaps improbable (see Jn i 18 20 28 ) ; in v. 9 it may 
involve the repetition of 6 0eo's (om. by Irenaeus, Apost. Preaching, 
47 — accidentally ?) as vocative, and does involve the rendering 
of 6 0eo'9 o-ov as the God of the God already mentioned. The 
point of the citation lies in its opening and closing words : (i) 
the Son has a royal and lasting authority (as 6 0eo9?), in contrast 

1 The addition of this kclL is not to mark a fresh quotation (as in v. 10 ), but 
simply to introduce the parallel line (as in v. 10 Kal Zpya. kt\.). 

2 Cp. Ps IIO 2 paj35oi> aov (om. n) ^airoureXe'L Kvpios. 

3 For irapd with accus. in this sense, cp. above, v. 4 , and Is 53 s drifiov Kal 
iicKiirbv Trapa rovs vioiis tQiv avdpunrwv. 

4 avofilav, B D (A* dvo/xias) M P lat harkl Ath. Eus., dSiKiav N A 33 38. 
218. 226. 919 Iren. Cosm. 


to the angels, and (ii) he is anointed (cxpicrc 1 = 6 XptVros) more 
highly than his companions — an Oriental metaphor referring 
here, as in Is 6i 3 etc., not to coronation but to bliss. If the 
writer of Hebrews has anything specially in mind, it is angels 
(i2 23 ) rather than human beings (3 14 ) as /Aerosol of the royal 
Prince, whose superior and supreme position is one of intense 
joy, based on a moral activity (as in 12 2 , where the passive side 
of the moral effort is emphasized). 

The sixth (vv. 10 " 12 ) quotation is from Ps 102 26 " 28 which in A 
runs thus : 

KaT dp^as 2 (TV, Kvpie, 3 ttjv yrjv e#eyu.€/\.iw<ras, 

koll epya t£>v ^eipwv aov euriv ol ovpavoi' 

avroii 4 aTToXovvrai, crv Se Sia/xeVeis, 

/ecu 7rttvr€? <I>s IfxaTiov iraXaniiBrjcrovTai, 

kolI wcrci TrepifioXaiov cAt^cts avrovs Kal aWayrjcrovTai' 

aol Se 6 auros et, kcu to. Ittj crov ovk e/<Aa't//ouo-iv. 

The author, for purposes of emphasis (as in 2 13 ), has thrown 
crv to the beginning of the sentence, and in the last line he has 
reverted to the more natural crv (B). In the text of the epistle 
there are only two uncertain readings, for the proposed change 
of SiayueVcis into the future Sia/xevds (vg. permanebis) does not 
really affect the sense, and D*'s d>s for wcreC is a merely stylistic 
alteration. In 12a two small points of textual uncertainty emerge. 
(a) Z\L£eis (A B D c K L P M fu Syr arm sah boh eth Orig. Chrys.) 
has been altered into dAAd^ci? (N* D* 327. 919 vt Tert. Ath.). 
The same variant occurs in LXX, where dAAd^eis is read by N 
for eAt^eis, which may have crept into the text from Is 34*, but is 
more likely to have been altered into dAAd^eis in view of dAAay?;- 
crovrai (eAiy^arovrat, arm), (b) wg Iji.aTioi' (N A B D* I 739 vt arm 
eth) after avrovs is omitted by D c M vg syr sah boh Chrys. Ath. 
Cyril Alex. Probably the words are due to homoioteleuton. If 
retained, a comma needs to be placed after them (so Zimmer.) ; 
they thus go with the preceding phrase, although one early ren- 
dering (D d) runs : " (and) like a garment they will be changed." 

The psalm is taken as a messianic oracle (see Bacon in Zeit- 
schrift fur die neutest. Wissenschaft, 1902, 280-285), which the 
Greek version implied, or at any rate suggested ; it contained 
welcome indications of the Son in his creative function and also 
of his destined triumph. The poetical suggestion of the sky as 
a mantle of the deity occurs in Philo, who writes (de fuga, 20) 

1 XP^ W > ln contrast to d\e/0oj, is exclusively metaphorical in NT (cp. Gray 
in EBi. 173), although neither Latin nor English is able to preserve the 

2 A classical and Philonic equivalent for 4v dpxv (LXX again in Ps 1 19 15 "). 
8 This title, which attracted our author, is an addition of the LXX. 

4 Including ■>] 7J}, l>ut with special reference to ol oi'pacot. 


that the Logos evpverat w<i ioSrjTa tov Koo-p.ov' yrjv yap «ai vSwp /ecu 
depa kcu irvp koX ra Ik tovtw iirap.Tr Lcr^trai. But the quotation is 

meant to bring out generally (i) the superiority of the Son as 
creative (so v. 2 ) to the creation, and (ii) his permanence amid 
the decay of nature; 1 the world wears out, 2 even the sky (12 28 ) 
is cast aside, and with it the heavenly lights, but the Son remains 
("thou art thou," boh); nature is at his mercy, not he at 
nature's. The close connexion of angels with the forces of 
nature (v. 7 ) may have involved the thought that this transiency 
affects angels as well, but our author does not suggest this. 

The final biblical proof (v. 13 ) is taken from Ps no 1 , a psalm 
in which later on the writer is to find rich messianic suggestion. 
The quotation clinches the argument for the superiority of the Son 
by recalling (v. 3 ) his unique divine commission and authority : 

18 To what angel did he ever say, 
" Sit at my right hand, 

till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet" ? 
14 Are not all angels merely spirits in the divine service, commissioned for 
the benefit of those who are to inherit salvation ? 

The Greek couplet — 

kolOov £K Se£ia>v p,ov, 

€OJS aV OW TOVS tyOpOVS (TOV V7tott68lov TWV 7To8o)V (TOV, 

corresponds exactly to the LXX ; D* omits dv as in Ac 2 35 . The 
martial metaphor is (cp. Introd. pp. xxxiii f.) one of the primitive 
Christian expressions which survive in the writer's vocabulary 
(cp. io 12 ). 

The subordinate position of angels is now (v. 14 ) summed up ; 
irai'Tes — all without distinction — are simply Xen-oupyiKd •nveu'p.aTa 
(without any power of ruling) cis SiaKoviay dirooTeXXofAeya (com- 
missioned, not acting on their own initiative). 3 According to the 
Mechilta on Ex 14 13 , the Israelites, when crossing the Red Sea, 
were shown "squadrons upon squadrons of ministering angels" 
(rntfn "osta ty nrp-nn ni"p^n); cp. Heb. of Sir 43 26a , and 

Dieterich's Mithrasliturgie, p. 6, line 14, 7) ap^r) tov Aei-rovpyowTos 
dve/xou (see above, v. 7 ). Philo speaks of ayyeAoc XeiTovpyoi (de 
Virtutibus, 74), of tovs vtvoZiaKovovi avTov twv Swap-cuv ayye\ov$ (de 
templo, 1), and in de plantatione, 4: Mwcnys Be 6v6p.aTt eiOvfioXu 
^pw/xevos dyye'Aous 7rpocrayop€V€t, 7rpecr/3£vop.evas *ai StayyeAAovVas 

1 A pre-Christian Upanishad (Sacred Books of East, xv. 266) cries : "Only 
when men shall roll up the sky like a hide, will there be an end of misery, 
unless God has first been known." 

2 Tra\aioua9ai is a common word with Ifiariov, and the wearing-out of 
clothes is a favourite metaphor for men (Is 50 9 , Sir 14 17 ) as well as for nature 
(Is 5 1 6 ). IlepijSoWoj' is any covering for the body ; not simply a veil (1 Co 
II 16 ), but a generic term (cp. Ps IO4 6 fi/3w<ros ws 1/j.o.tiov to TrepiJ36\aiov airrov). 

8 B reads diaKOvlas, as in S 9 rj/j-epacs for i}fj.4pq.. 


to. T€ irapa. tou iiye/xoVos rots utttikoois ayaOa. kul t<2 /Jao-tXet wv etcriv 
ot vwrjKooi xpeioi. "Angels of the (divine) ministry" was a com- 
mon rabbinic term, and the writer concludes here that the angels 
serve God, not, as Philo loved to argue, in the order of nature, 
but in promoting the interests of God's people ; this is the main 
object of their existence. He ignores the Jewish doctrine voiced 
in Test. Levi 3 5 , that in (the sixth ?) heaven the angels of the 
Presence (ot AeiToupyowrcs koX i£L\a<TKop.evoi 77730s Kvpiov iwl 7racrais 
rats dyvotous twv SikcuW) sacrifice and intercede for the saints, 
just as in n 40 -:^ 1 he ignores the companion doctrine that the 
departed saints interceded for the living. Later Christian specu- 
lation revived the Jewish doctrine of angels interceding for men 
and mediating their prayers, but our author stands deliberately 
apart from this. Heaven has its myriads of angels (12 23 ), but 
the entire relation of men to God depends upon Christ. Angels 
are simply servants (Acu-oupyoi, v. 7 ) of God's saving purpose for 
mankind ; how these "angels and ministers of grace" further it, 
the writer never explains. He would not have gone as far as 

Philo, at any rate (ayy«Aoi . . . [epai kcu deiai <puVa<r, vwoSiaKovoi 
kclI virap)(OL rov irpwrov 8eov, oV u>v ota irpeo-fSevrHyv ocra av OtXrjcrr) 
t<3 ycvei 17/i.uv irpoaOtairLcrai SiayyeAAei, de Abrahamo, 23). 

In Sid tous |j.e\\orras ic\i(]pokojieie <ru>TK]picu' (k\. ao)T. only here 
in NT), it is remarkable that o-wTTjpta is mentioned for the first 
time without any adjective or explanation. Evidently it had 
already acquired a specific Christian meaning for the readers as 
well as tor the writer ; no definition was required to differentiate 
the Christian significance of the term from the current usage. 
As crcoTr/pia involves the sacrificial work of Christ (who is never 
called cruiT-qp), it cannot be applied to the pre-Christian period 
of revelation. Indeed in our epistle aoyT-qpia is invariably eschato- 
logical. The outlook in the messianic oracles already quoted is 
one of expectation ; some future deliverance at the hands of 
God or his messianic representative is anticipated. MeXWras 
implies a divine purpose, as in 8 5 n 8 . 

The phrase about tous u.e\\orras' o-arrrjpiay marks a 
skilful transition to the deeper theme of the next passage, viz. the 
relation of the Son to this o-uriqpio. (on 2 1 " 9 cp. W. Robertson Smith 
in Expositor 2 , i. pp. 138 f.). But the transition is worked out in 
a practical warning (2 1 " 4 ) to the readers, which not only explains 
the underlying interest of the preceding biblical proofs, but leads 
up effectively to the next aspect of truth which he has in mind : 

1 We must therefore (81a tovto, in view of this pre-eminent authority of 
the Son) pay closer attention to what we have heard, in case we drift away, 
2 For if the divine word spoken by angels held good (iyivero /S^3cuor, proved 
valid), if transgression and disobedience met with due (?v8ikov = adequate, not 
arbitrary) punishment in every case, s how shall we (r/Aieis, emphatic) escape 


the penalty 1 for neglecting (d/teXijo-ai'Tej, if we ignore : Mt 22 5 ) a salvation 
which (iJTis, inasmuch as it) was originally proclaimed by the Lord himself (not 
by mere angels) and guaranteed to us by those who heard him, 4 while God 
corroborated their testimony with signs and wonders and a variety of miracu- 
lous powers, distributing the holy Spirit as it pleased him (ai/Tou emphatic as 
in Ro J*). 

Apart from the accidental omission of v. 1 by M 1739, Origen, and of n 
(M P) in v. 4 , with the variant (B° D c ) for irapapvQfj.ei', 2 the only 
textual item of any moment, and it is a minor one, is the substitution of vw6 for 
Sia in v. 3 by some cursives (69. 623. 1066. 1845), due either to the following 
vtto, or to the dogmatic desire of emphasizing the initiative of 6 Kvpios. But 
did here as in 8C ayyfKiov, meaning "by," is used to preserve the idea that 
in \a\eiv the subject is God (I 1 ). The order of words (v. 1 ) del TreptoaoTepQs 
irpoaix €LV ^/*Sl has been spoiled in K vg (irfpiaooTepuis 5«) and K L P (ijfias 

As elsewhere in Hellenistic Greek {e.g. Jos. Apion. i. t, eVel 
Se crvyyov% opw tuis vtto $vo-p.eveias vtto tlvwv elprjpLtvais irpoai)covTa<; 
(3\aa<pr)fjLiat<; Kal Tots irepl tyjv ' ApxaioXoyiav V7r' i/xov yty pa p. ptvois 
airuTTOVVTas ktX. ; Strabo, ii. I. 7, tois p.ev airio-Ttlv . . . eKiivr] Se 
irpocr£)(ZLv), izpoaiytiv (sc. tov vow) is the opposite of airicrTtlv : 

to "attend" is to believe and act upon what is heard. This is 
implied even in Ac 8 6 and 16 14 (irpoo-e^eiv tols XaXovp.evois v-n-6 
HavXov) where it is the attention of one who hears the gospel 
for the first time ; here it is attention to a familiar message. 
nepio-o-oTepws is almost in its elative sense of " with extreme 
care " ; " all the more " would bring out its force here as in 13 19 
Certainly there is no idea of demanding a closer attention to the 
gospel than to the Law. c Hpds = we Christians (17/nv, x 1 ), you and 
I, as in v. 3 . The to. aKovaBivTa (in tols aKouo-Geio-i) is the revela- 
tion of the evayyeXiov (a term never used by our author), i.e. 
what 6 0eo5 eAaA^o-ev Iv ulw, i 1 , and this is further defined 
(in vv. 3 - 4 ) as consisting in the initial revelation made by Jesus on 
earth and the transmission of this by divinely accredited envoys 
to the writer and his readers (eis ??//as i/3ef3ai(L9rj). In the Ep. 
Aristeas, 127, oral teaching is preferred to reading (to yap KaXws 

t/rjv iv t<3 Ta vop.ip.a crvvT7]pu.v eivai - toOto Se iffLTeXelo-Oai Sia. rr}<; 
d/cpoacr€a)S ttoAAw p.aXXov r) Sia. ttJs avayvuxrewy, and the evange- 
lists of V. 4 include omvcs iXaXr/aav tov Xoyov tov 6hov (13 7 ) ; 
but while the news was oral, there is no particular emphasis as 
that here. The author simply appeals for attentive obedience, 
p-rj iroTe irapapua)|j.eK (2 aor. subj.), i.e. drift away from (literally, 
" be carried past " and so lose) the o-ajTr/pia which we have 
heard. Hapapeay in this sense goes back to Pr 3 21 vU, pr] 
irapapvfjs, Trjprjcrov Se ip.-t]v (SovXrjv Kal Ivvoiav (see Clem. Paed. III. 

1 €K<pfv^6p.e8a, without an object (Kplfia tov 9eov, Ro 2 3 ) as I2 25 , Sir 16 15 , 
1 Th 5 3 . 

2 Arm apparently read v<TTtprio-wpi.ev, and P. Junius needlessly conjectured 
xapaffvpCifxtv ("pervert them"). 



xi. 58, 8tb Kal onxrreAAeiv \prj ras yueaucas koct/xuus nal Trepi(T(piyyeiv 

atSot awcppoii, /xrj Trapappvwcri tt}s dXry^cta?) ; indeed the writer 
may have had the line of Proverbs in mind, as Chrys. suggested. 

The verb may have lost its figurative meaning, and may have been simply 
an equivalent for "going wrong," like " labi " in Latin (cp. Cicero, De 
Oficiis, i. 6, "labiautem, errare . . . malum et turpe ducimus "). Anyhow 
irpoa^x eLV niust not be taken in a nautical sense (=moor), in order to round 
oft" the "drift away" of wapapiw, a term which carries a sombre significance 
here ( = irapairlTTTeit>, 6 6 ) ; p.r)iroTe wapapvu>p:ev, tovt£itti fir) airo\u>[.ie$a, fir) 
iK-rrtawixev (Chrysostom). 

In vv. 2f> we have a characteristic (e.g. io 28 ' 31 ) argument a minori 
ad mains ; if, as we know from our bible (the bible being the Greek 
OT), every infringement of the Sinaitic legislation was strictly 
punished — a legislation enacted by means of angels — how much 
more serious will be the consequences of disregarding such a 
(great, Tr]\u<avTr)) croiT-qpia as that originally proclaimed by the 
Lord himself! The TyXiKavrrj is defined as (a) "directly in- 
augurated by the Kvpios himself," and (b) transmitted to us 
unimpaired by witnesses who had a rich, supernatural endow- 
ment ; it is as if the writer said, " Do not imagine that the 
revelation has been weakened, or that your distance from the 
life of Jesus puts you in any inferior position ; the full power of 
God's Spirit has been at work in the apostolic preaching to which 
we owe our faith." 

The reference in X670S is to the Mosaic code, not, as Schoettgen thought, 
to such specific orders of angels as the admonitions to Lot and his wife. 

Aoyos is used, not vo'/aos, in keeping with the emphasis upon 
the divine Xakzlv in the context, and, instead of vo'/aos Mwo-e'cos 
(io 28 ), 6 81 dyye\(j)v XaXrjOeU Aoyos is chosen for argumentative 
reasons. Here as in Gal 3 19 and Ac 7 38 - 53 (iXdfSere rbv co'/tov cts 
Surrayas dyyeA.wv) the function of angels in the revelation of the 
Law at Sinai is assumed, but without any disparaging tone such 
as is overheard in Paul's reference. The writer and his readers 
shared the belief, which first appeared in Hellenistic Judaism, 
that God employed angels at Sinai. Josephus (Ant. xv. 136, 
■f]fj.£yv Se Ta /<dAAio"Ta twv Soy/AaTcuv kcu to. ocriwrara tmv ev tois 
vofjiots 8l ayyiKwv 7rapd tov 0€ov fj.a86vT(av) * repeats this tradition, 
but it went back to the LXX which altered Dt 33 s into a definite 
proof of angelic co-operation (£k 8e£t.wv airov ayyeXoi [itr avrov) 
and brought this out in Ps 68 18 . Rabbinic tradition elaborated 
the idea. The writer, however, would not have claimed, like 
Philo (de vita Mosis, 2 3 ), that the Mosaic legislation was (3e/3cn.a, 
do-dAeura, valid and supreme as long as the world endured. 

1 This is from a speech of Herod inciting the Jews to fight bravely. " In 
such a speech," as Robertson Smith observed, "one does not introduce 
doubtful points of theology." The tenet was firmly held. 


riapdPaais ica! irapaKorj form one idea (see on I 1 ) ; as 7rapaKorj 
(which is not a LXX term) denotes a disregard of orders or of 
appeals (cp. Clem. Horn. X. 13, el i-rrl TrapaKorj Xoyuiv KpiVis yivcrai, 
and the use of the verb in Mt 18 17 edv 8k TrapaKovcrr) avTwv ktX., 
or in LXX of Is 65 12 iXdXrjo-e xal TraprjKovcraTe), it represents the 
negative aspect, Trapdf3a<ns the positive. MurGa-rroooo-ia is a 
sonorous synonym (rare in this sombre sense of Ko'Aao-ts) for 
[xiaOos or for the classical fu<r6o8ocria. Some of the facts which 
the writer has in mind are mentioned in 3 17 and io 28 . The Law 
proved no dead letter in the history of God's people ; it enforced 
pains and penalties for disobedience. 

In v. 3 dpxV XaPoGcra is a familiar Hellenistic phrase ; cp. e.g. 

Philo in Quaest. in Exod. I2 2 (orav 01 twv (nrapTuiv Kapirol TeAcico- 
6w(riv, 01 twv SiySpujv ycft'crecos o.pxi v XapLJ3dvovcriv), and de Vila 
Mosis, I 14 (ttjv dp^v tov yevtatlai Xdfiov iv Alyvirrw). The 
writer felt, as Plutarch did about Rome, Ta 'Poj/xaiW Trpdyp.aTa 
ovk av bfravQa TrpovfSt] <Wd//€a>s, p.rj Otiav tlvol dpx^/i' Xa/3ovra xal 
p.r)8kv /xe'ya /xt^Sc TrapaBo^ov eY/nxTa^. The modern mind wonders 
how the writer could assume that the o-wnypia, as he conceives 
it, was actually preached by Jesus on earth. But he was un- 
conscious of any such difference. The Christian revelation was 
made through the Jesus who had lived and suffered and ascended, 
and the reference is not specifically to his teaching, but to his 
personality and career, in which God's saving purpose came to 
full expression. Oi dKou'crarrcs means those who heard Jesus 
himself, the avroTrrai of Lk i 1 " 4 (cp. the shorter conclusion to 
Mark's gospel : perd 8k TavTa /ecu auros 6 'Jrjfrovs . . . e£a7reo-- 
rciXtv St' uuto)v to lepbv xal dcpOaprov xi)pvyp.a tj}? alwvtov cruiTqpias). 
If the Sinaitic Law lyivero /3e'/3aios, the Christian revelation was 
also confirmed or guaranteed to us — els ^p.ds (1 P i 25 to prjp.a to 

eiayyeXio~6kv €is vpas : Ac 2 22 'Ir)<rovv . . . dv8pa oltto tov 0eov 

aTro8e8eLyp.€vov ek vp.5?) i^e^aiuQr]. It reached us, accurate and 
trustworthy. No wonder, when we realize the channel along which 
it flowed. It was authenticated by the double testimony of men l 
who had actually heard Jesus, and of God who attested and 
inspired them in their mission. luyemp.apTupeii' means " assent " 
in Ep. Aristeas, 191, and "corroborate" in the de Mundo, 400a 
(o-vviTnp.apTvpel 8k xal 6 yStos a7ras), as usual, but is here a 
sonorous religious term for 0-vp.p.apTvpziv (Ro 8 16 ). " Coniunctio 
o~vv . . . hunc habet sensum, nos in fide euangelii confirmari 
symphonia quadam Dei et hominum" (Calvin). 

1 In vwb tCov aKovaavTuv, vtt6 is used, as invariably throughout Ilpds 
'E(3palovs, of persons, which is a proof of good Greek. "There is no more 
certain test of the accuracy of individual Greek writers than their use of the 
passives (or equivalent forms) with vird and a genitive. In the best writers this 
genitive almost invariably denotes personal, or at least living objects" (W. J. 
Hickie, on Andocides, De Mysteriis, § 14). 


arjfj.. , rep., Si'v. in the reverse order describe the miracles of Jesus in Ac 
2 22 ; here they denote the miracles of the primitive evangelists as in 2 Co I2 12 . 
Philo, speaking of the wonderful feats of Moses before the Pharaoh, declares 
that signs and wonders are a plainer proof of what God commands than any 
verbal injunction (tire 8t) tou deov rpavortpais x/"? tr A t< ^" &iro8ell-eo~i reus 5td 
a-qfxeluv ko\ Teparwv ri ^ouXrjfia SeSr^XuiKdros, vit. Mos. i. 1 6). 

As " God " (Oeov) is the subject of the clause, airov (for which 
D actually reads 6eov) refers to him, and Trv€vp.aro<; d-y lov is the 
genitive of the object after p-epic-pols (cp. 6 4 ). What is dis- 
tributed is the Spirit, in a variety of endowments. To take 
airov with 7rv€u/xaTo? and make the latter the genitive of the 
subject, would tally with Paul's description of the Spirit Sicupovv 
toYa e/azo~r<i> Ka#d>s ftovXerai (i Co I2 U ), but would fail to explain 
what was distributed and would naturally require -rcS ^epicr/zw. 
A fair parallel lies in Gal 3 5 6 €7rt^op^ya>v to -rrvev/xa /cat 
ivepyiLv Swdfxeis Iv v/j2v, where oWa/xeis also means " miraculous 
powers" or "mighty deeds" (a Hellenistic sense, differing from 
that of the LXX = " forces "). In Kcvrd ttjc ciutou Bi\r\aiv, 
as perhaps even in 7 18 (cp. Blass, 284. 3 ; Abbott's Johannint 
Grammar, 2558), the possessive auros is emphatic. OeXrjo-tv is 
read by N ca R for Serjcriv in Ps 21 3 (cp. Ezk 28 23 p.rj 6e\rjo-ei 
OeXrjo-w). It is not merely a vulgarism for 8(krjp.a. "©eA^/xa 
n'est pas tfe'A^cris, volonte ; OiXrjjxa. designe le vouloir concentre" 
sur un moment, sur un acte, l'ordre, le commandment " (Psichaii, 
Essai sur le grec de la Septante, 1908, p. 17111.). The writer is 

fond of Such forms {e.g. aOirrjO'L';, a^A^o-i?, au'crxis, u€Td#ems, 

Trp6o-)<y<Ti<i). Naturally the phrase has a very different meaning 
from the similar remark in Lucian, who makes Hesiod {Dis- 
putatio cum Hesiode, 4) apologize for certain omissions in his 
poetry, by pleading that the Muses who inspired him gave their 
gifts as they pleased — at #eai Se to.% iavriov Swpeds 019 re av iOe\u>o-i. 
The vital significance of the Son as the dpx^yds of this 
" salvation " l by means of his sufferings on earth, is now devel- 
oped (vv. 5 " 18 ). This unique element in the Son has been already 
hinted (i 3 ), but the writer now proceeds to explain it as the core of 
Christ's pre-eminence. The argument starts from the antithesis 
between the Son and angels (v. 5 ) ; presently it passes beyond 
this, and angels are merely mentioned casually in a parenthesis 
(v. 16 ). The writer is now coming to the heart of his theme, how 
and why the Son or Lord, of whom he has been speaking, 
suffered, died, and rose. Vv. 5 " 9 are the prelude to vv. 10 " 18 . The 
idea underlying the whole passage is this : AaXeiaOai Sid tou Kupiou 
meant much more than AaAetcr^ai 81 dyyeAw, for the Christian 
revelation of awrrjpia had involved a tragic and painful experi- 
ence for the Son on earth as he purged sins away. His present 
superiority to angels had been preceded by a period of mortal 

•In Ak™ of Is 9 6 the messiah is called irar^p rod /jLtXXovTos atuvos. 


experience on earth iv rats ^.epais rrj<; aapKos avrov. But this 
sojourn was only for a time ; it was the vital presupposition of 
his triumph ; it enabled him to die a death which invested him 
with supreme power on behalf of his fellow-men ; and it taught 
him sympathy (cp. Zimmer, in Studien und Kritiken, 1882, 
pp. 413 f., on 2 1 " 5 , and in NTlichen Studien, i. pp. 20-129, on 
2 6 " 18 ). 

6 For the world to come, of which I (yj/meh of authorship) am speaking, 
was not put under the control of angels (whatever may be the case with the 
present world). 6 One writer, as tve know, has affirmed, 
" What is man, that thou art mindful of him? 
or the son of man, that thou carest for him ? 

7 For a little while thou hast put him lower than the angels, 
crowning him with glory and honour, 

8 putting all things wider his feet." 

Noiu by 1 ' 'putting all things under him " 2 the writer meant to leave nothing 
out of his control. But, as it is, we do not yet see " ill things controlled" by 
man ; 9 what we do see is Jesus ''who was put lower than the angels for a 
little white" to suffer death, and who has been "crowned with glory and 
honour," that by God's grace he might taste death for everyone. 

Ou y»P aYY e '^ ot s (yap, as in Greek idiom, opening a new 
question; almost equivalent to "now": ou yap = non certe, 
Valckenaer) uirira^e (i.e. 6 0eo's, as C vg add) — the writer is 
already thinking of virtTa£a<> in the quotation which he is about 
to make. In the light of subsequent allusions to /xeWovra ayadd 
(g 11 io 1 ) and rj jxiWovcra (l3 14 ), we see that Trp oiKoujieVTiv 
tt)v ixe'Mouo-ai' means the new order of things in which the o-orrrjpia 
of i 14 2 2 - 3 is to be realized (see o 28 ), and from which already 
influences are pouring down into the life of Christians. The 
latter allusion is the pivot of the transition. The powers and 
spiritual experiences just mentioned (in v. 4 ) imply this higher, 
future order of things (cp. 6 4 - 5 especially Swa^eis re //.eAAov-ros 
alamos), from which rays stream down into the present. How 
the ministry of angels is connected with them, we do not learn. 
But the author had already urged that this service of angels was 
rendered to the divine authority, and that it served to benefit 
Christians (i 14 ). This idea starts him afresh. Who reigns in 
the new order? Not angels but the Son, and the Son who has 
come down for a time into human nature and suffered death. 
He begins by quoting a stanza from a psalm which seems 
irrelevant, because it compares men and angels. In reality this 
is not what occupies his mind; otherwise he might have put his 
argument differently and used, for example, the belief that 
Christians would hold sway over angels in the next world 
(1 Co6 2 - 3 ). 

1 iv t$ (sc. \iyeiv, as 8 13 ). 

2 The omission of this <xvt£ by B d e arm does not alter the sense. 


Philo (de opificio. 29, ou trap Scrov vcrraTOf yiyovev &vdpu)Tros, 5ia tt)i> rd^iv 
T/Xdrrcorai) argues that man is not inferior in position because he was created 
last in order ; but this refers to man in relation to other creatures, not in rela- 
tion to angels, as here. 

The quotation (vv. 6_8a ) from the 8th psalm runs : 

ti IdTtv av6pwTro<; on /iifivtjcrKr) * avrov, 
rj vios ai'6p(i)Trov on iTTt.o~K€Trrr] avrov; 
r)\drrwo-as avrov fipa)(y ti Trap dyye'Aous, 
ho^rj koX TLfjLrj eo-rec/xivwo-as avrov. 
iravra V7T€Ta^as VTroKaru) Tail' 7roSaiv avrov. 

The LXX tr. DwN not incorrectly by dyyeXous, since the elohim 
of the original probably included angels. This was the point of 
the quotation, for the author of Hebrews. The text of the 
quotation offers only a couple of items, (a) rl is changed into 
tis (LXX A) by C* P 104. 917. 1288. 1319. 1891. 2127 vt boh, 
either in conformity to the preceding Tts or owing to the feeling 
that the more common Tts (in questions, e.g. 12 7 , Jn 12 34 ) suited 
the reference to Christ better (Bleek, Zimmer). (b) The quota- 
tion omits koX Kareo-rrjcras avrov iirl tol cpya twv \eipwv aov before 
77-dvTa : it is inserted by N A C D* M P syr lat boh arm eth Euth. 
Theodt. Sedul. to complete the quotation. It is the one line in 
the sentence on which the writer does not comment ; probably 
he left it out as incompatible with i 10 («pya twv xetpwv aov cto-tv 
ot oipavoi), although he frequently quotes more of an OT passage 
than is absolutely required for his particular purpose. 

In SicfxapTu'paTo 8^ -rroo ti? (v. 6 ), even if the 84 is adversative, 
it need not be expressed in English idiom. hiap.apTvpzio-6ai in 
Greek inscriptions " means primarily to address an assembly or a 
king" (Hicks, in Classical ^Review, i. 45). Here, the only place 
where it introduces an OT quotation, it = attest or affirm. IIov tis 
in such a formula is a literary mannerism familiar in Philo {De 
Ebriet. 14 : c*7re ydp ttov Tts), and ttov later on (4"*) recurs in a 
similar formula, as often in Philo. The tis implies no modifica- 
tion of the Alexandrian theory of inspiration ; his words are God's 
words (v. 8 ). The psalm intends no contrast between TiXdrrwaas 
ktX. and 86|fj . . . iaTefy&vwo-as aiir6v. The proof that this wonder- 
ful being has been created in a position only slightly inferior to 
that of the divine host lies in the fact that he is crowned king 
of nature, invested with a divine authority over creation. The 
psalm is a panegyric on man, like Hamlet's (" What a piece of 
work is man ! how noble in reason ! how infinite in faculties ! in 
form and moving how express and admirable ! in action how like 
an angel ! " etc.), but with a religious note of wonder and gratitude 
to God. In applying the psalm, however, our writer takes fipaxv ti 

1 fiif.t.vr}<TKri means mindfulness shown in act, and iirKTiciTrrr), as always in 
the NT, denotes personal care. 


in the sense of "temporarily" rather than "slightly," and so has 
to make the " inferiority " and " exaltation " two successive phases, 
in applying the description to the career of Jesus. He does not take 
this verse as part of a messianic ode ; neither here nor elsewhere 
does he use the term "Son of Man." He points out, first of 
all (v. 8 ) that, as things are (viiv 8e outtcj : ov tm) = ov 7rws might be 
read, i.e. "in no wise," and vvv taken logically instead of temporally ; 
but this is less natural and pointed), the last words are still unful- 
filled; outtoj opo)/i€f auTw (i.e. man) to. " iran-a " {i.e. rj oiKovp.£vr) 
77 /xe'AAovo-a) u-rroTeTayiJieVa. Human nature is not " crowned with 
glory and honour " at present. How can it be, when the terror 
of death and the devil (v. 15 ) enslaves it? What is to be said, 
then ? This, that although we do not see man triumphant, there 
is something that we do see : pXe'-n-o/jiei' 'iTjcrouf dealing triumph- 
antly with death on man's behalf (v. 9 ). The 'l^o-oGi' comes in 
with emphasis, as in 3 1 and 12 2 , at the end of a preliminary 
definition toi> . . . T)\aTTtofj.e'eoi'. 

It is less natural to take the messianic interpretation which 
involves the reference of airw already to him. On this view, the 
writer frankly allows that the closing part of the prophecy is still 
unfulfilled. " We do not yet see to. trdvTa under the sway of Jesus 
Christ, for the world to come has not yet come ; it has only been 
inaugurated by the sacrifice of Christ (i 3 KaOapKT/xov twv dp.apTiwv 

7rot7ycra/i.£vos Ik6.9l<T€V Iv Se^La rrj? ixeya\<vcrvvrj<; ew vt/^Aois). Though 

the Son is crowned (i 8,9 ) and enthroned (i 13 xdOov £k Se£ia>v /xov), 
his foes are still to be subdued (ew? av 6w rovs e^povs a-ov vtto7t68iov 
twv 7ro8aiv crov), and we must be content to wait for our full a-wr^pta 
(g 28 ) at his second coming ; under the ov™ 6pwp.ev ktA. of experi- 
ence there is a deeper experience of faith." The writer rather 
turns back in v. 9 to the language of v. 7 ; this at least has been 
fulfilled. Jesus has been put lower than the angels and he has been 
crowned. How and why ? The writer answers the second ques- 
tion first. Or rather, in answering the second he suggests the 
answer to the first. At this point, and not till then, the messianic 
interpretation becomes quite natural and indeed inevitable. It 
is the earlier introduction of it which is unlikely. The application 
to the messiah of words like those quoted in v. 6 is forced, and 
" Hebrews " has no room for the notion of Christ as the ideal or 
representative Man, as is implied in the messianic interpretation 
of airw in v. 8 . That interpretation yields a true idea — the 
thought expressed, e.g., in T. E. Brown's poem, " Sad ! Sad ! " — 
"One thing appears to me — 

The work is not complete ; 
One world I know, and see 

It is not at His feet — 

Not, not ! Is this the sum ?" 


No, our author hastens to add, it is not the sum ; our outlook is 
not one of mere pathos ; we do see Jesus enthroned, with the 
Full prospect of ultimate triumph. But the idea of the issues of 
Christ's triumph being still incomplete is not true here. What 
is relevant, and what is alone relevant, is the decisive character of 
his sacrifice. The argument of v. 8 - 9 , therefore, is that, however 
inapplicable to man the rhapsody of the psalm is, at present, the 
words of the psalm are true, notwithstanding. For we see the 
Jesus who was "put lower than the angels for a little while" to 
suffer death (Bid. to Trd0r)ua tou Oa^aTou must refer to the death of 
Jesus himself, 1 not to the general experience of death as the 
occasion for his incarnation), now "crowned with glory and 
honour." When Sid to Trd0r|u.a tou Qavdrou is connected with what 
follows (86£fl Kal Tijx-rj eore^avwu.eVoi'), it gives the reason for the 
exaltation, not the object of the incarnation ( = €is to irdax^v). 
But Sid . . . Oavarov is elucidated in a moment by oVws . . . Bavarov. 
V. 9 answers the question why Jesus was lowered and exalted — it 
was for the sake of mankind. In v. 10 the writer proceeds to ex- 
plain how he was " lowered " — it was by suffering that culminated 
in death. Then he recurs naturally to the " why." The mixture 
of quotation and comment in v. 9 leaves the meaning open to some 
dubiety, although the drift is plain. " But one Being referred to in 
the psalm (t6c . . . Tj\arra>|ji<W) we do see — it is Jesus, and Jesus 
as rjXaTTio/xevov for the purpose of suffering death, and 8<5|tj Kal Tiufj 
ecrr€4>ai'wu.eW. Why did he die ? Why was he thus humiliated 
and honoured ? For the sake of every man ; his death was virep 
TravTo's, part of the divine purpose of redemption." Thus ottws . . . 
GamTou explains and expounds the idea of Sid to TrdOrj/xa (which 
consists in) tov davdrov, gathering up the full object and purpose 
of the experience which has just been predicated of Jesus. This 
implies a pause after e<rre<£avw/xeW, or, as Bleek suggests, the 
supplying of an idea like o Z-n-aOev before oVids ktX., if yevo-qrai is to 
be taken, as it must be, as = " he might taste." How a oVws clause 
follows and elucidates hd ktX. may be seen in Ep. Arist. 106 (Sid 
toiis ev tous dyeeidis orras, oVios /x^Scvo? #iyydva)o-iv). 

As for v. 8a , Paul makes a similar comment (i Co 15 27 ), but excludes God 
from the ra. iravra. The curiously explicit language here is intended to 
reiterate what is possibly hinted at in v. B , viz., that the next world has no 
room for the angelic control which characterizes the present. (The ra iravra 
includes even angels !) This belief was familiar to readers of the Greek 
bible, where Dt 32 s voices a conception of guardian-angels over the non- 
Jewish nations which became current in some circles of the later Judaism. 
Non-Jewish Christians, like the readers of our epistle, would be likely to 
appreciate the point of an argument which dealt with this. Note that 
dwirbraKTov occurs in a similar antithesis in Epictetus, ii. IO. I, raisr-j] t& 

1 But not, as the Greek fathers, etc., supposed, as if it was the fact of hif 
death (and stay in the underworld) that lowered him (5td = on account of). 


&\\a viroreTQ.yfJ.iva, avrrjv 5' aSovXtviof sal avvirbraKrov. Our author's 
language reads almost like a tacit repudiation of Philo's remark on Gn l ib in 
de opificio Mundi (28), that God put man over all things with the exception 
of the heavenly beings — Sao. yap dv-qra iv roh rpurl <rrc»xe' 'S "YV vSari atpi 
wdvra virirarrev avT<p, ra. Kar ovpavbv VTrc^eXd/jLevos tire deidrepas ftolpas 

The closing clause of v. 9 (Sirws x ( *P tTl ® €0 " "^P ' jra '' T °s Y 6u '°"n" 
Tai Qav&Tou), therefore, resumes and completes the idea of 81a t6 
■n-dOr]iJ.a rov Oavdrov. Each follows a phrase from the psalm ; 
but 07rws . . . Oavdrov does not follow lar^avujfxivov logically. 
The only possible method of thus taking ottws ktX. would be 
by applying 8o$rj kcu Tip.rj lan^avwfxivov to Christ's life prior to 
death, either (a) to his pre-incarnate existence, when "in the 
counsels of heaven " he was, as it were, " crowned for death " 
(so Rendall, who makes yevaaaOat Oavdrov cover the "inward 
dying" of daily self-denial and suffering which led up to Calvary), 
or (b) to his incarnate life (so, e.g., Hofmann, Milligan, Bruce), as 
if his readiness to sacrifice himself already threw a halo round 
him, or (c) specifically to God's recognition and approval of him 
at the baptism and transfiguration (Dods). But the use of &6$a 
in v. 10 tells against such theories ; it is from another angle 
altogether that Jesus is said in 2 P i 17 to have received tl^v /ecu 
86$av from God at the transfiguration. The most natural inter- 
pretation, therefore, is to regard 86$rj . . . io-re^avaifievov as 
almost parenthetical, rounding off the quotation from the psalm. 
It is unnecessary to fall back on such suggestions as (i) to assume 
a break in the text after io-refyavuiilvov, some words lost which led 
up to oVcds . . . Oavdrov (Windisch), or (ii) to translate oVus by 
"how," as in Lk 24 20 , i.e. "we see how Jesus tasted death" (so 
Blass, boldly reading eyewraro), or by " after that " or " when " 
(Moses Stuart), as in Soph. Oed. Col. 1638 (where, however, it 
takes the indicative as usual), etc. 

In inrtp ttclvtos, tvo.vt6s was at an early stage taken as neuter, practi- 
cally = the universe. This was a popular idea in Egyptian Christianity. 
"You know," says the risen Christ to his disciples, in a Bohairic narrative 
of the death of Joseph {Texts and Studies, iv. 2. 130), "that many times 
now I have told you that I must needs be crucified and taste death for the 
universe." The interpretation occurs first in Origen, who (in Joan. i. 35) 
writes: "He is a 'great highpriest' [referring to Heb 4 15 ], having offered 
himself up in sacrifice once (<x7ra£) not for human beings alone, but for the 
rest of rational creatures as well (d\\a ko.1 vwep rQiv Xonrwv \oyiKuv). ' For 
without God he tasted death for everyone' (x w i°'s yap ^ eo ^ inrip iravrbs 
iyeicraro Oavdrov). In some copies of the epistle to the Hebrews this passage 
runs: 'for by the grace of God' (x a P LTL 7<*P Oeov). Well, if 'without God 
he tasted death for everyone,' he did not die simply for human beings, 
but for the rest of rational creatures as well ; and if ' by the grace of God he 
tasted the death for everyone,' x he died for all except for God (xwph Otov) — 
for 'by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone.' It would indeed be 

1 Reading rod before inrip. 


preposterous (&Toirov) to say that he tasted death for human sins and not alsc 
for any other being besides man who has fallen into sin — e.g. for the stars. 
Even the stars are by no means pure before God, as we read in the book of 
lob: ' The stars are not pure before him,' unless this is said hyperbolically. 
For this reason he is a 'great highpriest,' because he restores {atroKaOLaTricn) 
all things to his Father's kingdom, ordering it so that what is lacking in any 
part of creation is completed for the fulness of the Father's glory (irpbs rb 
Xuprjcrcu 86i-ai> irarpiK^v)." The Greek fathers adhered steadily to this inter- 
pretation of iravrbs as equivalent to the entire universe, including especially 
angels. But the neuter is always expressed in " Hebrews " by the plural, with 
or without the article, and, as v. 16 shows, the entire interest is in human 

Veija-tjTaL after uvtp iravrbs has also been misinterpreted. Teijeiv in LXX, 
as a rendering of ci'tp, takes either genitive (I S 14'- 4 , cp. 2 Mac 6 20 ) or ac- 
cusative (I S 14 29 , Job 34 3 ), but yeveadat. dav&rov never occurs; it is the 
counterpart of the rabbinic phrase nrvs eye, and elsewhere in the NT 
(Mk 9 l = Mt i6 28 =Lk g' 27 , Jn 8--) is used not of Jesus but of men. It 
means to experience ( = l5elv davarov, n 5 ). Here it is a, 
not a rapid sip, as if Jesus simply "tasted" death (Chrysostom, Theophyl., 
Oecumenius : oil yap ivt/j.eivev ry Oav&Tti) d\\a fibvov avrbv rpbirov riva 
aireycvaaTo) quickly, or merely sipped it like a doctor sipping a drug to en- 
courage a patient. The truer comment would be: "When I think of our 
Lord as tasting death it seems to me as if He alone ever truly tasted death " 
(M'Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, p. 259); yevar/Tai does 
not echo (3pax6 ti, as though all that Jesus experienced of death was slight or 

The hardest knot of the hard passage lies in x°-P lTl Oeov. In 
the second century two forms of the text were current, x^pic 
eeoy and xapiti eeoy. This is plain from Origen's comment 
(see above) ; he himself is unwilling to rule out the latter 
reading, but prefers the former, which he apparently found to be 
the ordinary text. Theodoret assumed it to be original, as 
Ambrose did in the West. Jerome knew both (on Gal 3 10 ), 
and the eighth century Anastasius Abbas read x w P^ ("absque 
deo : sola enim divina natura non egebat "), i.e., in the sense 
already suggested by Fulgentius and Vigilius, that Christ's divine 
nature did not die. On the other hand, writers like Eusebius, 
Athanasius, and Chrysostom never mention any other reading 
than x°-P LTt > Of all the supporters of x^P^ tne m ost emphatic 
is Theodore of Mopsuestia, who protests that it is most absurd 
(yeXoioTarov) to substitute x° L P lTL ^ €0 ^ f° r X 40 / 3 ' 5 $ eo ^> arguing from 
passages like 1 Co 15 10 and Eph 2 8, 9 that Paul's custom is not 
to use the former phrase a7rXcos, aXXa ttcivtcos airo tivos a.Ko\ov6ia<; 
\6yov. The reading suited the Nestorian view of the person of 
Christ, and probably the fact of its popularity among the 
Nestorians tended to compromise x w P^ m tne eves 0I " tne ^ ater 
church ; it survives only in M 424**, though there is a trace of 
it (a Nestorian gloss ?) in three codices of the Peshitto. But 
Oecumenius and Theophylact are wrong in holding that it 
originated among the Nestorians. This is dogmatic prejudice; 


Xw/h's was read in good manuscripts, if not in the best, by 
Origen's time, and the problem is to determine whether it or 
X'ipiri was original. The one may be a transcriptional error for 
the other. In this case, the textual canon "potior lectio 
difficillima " would favour x w P^- But the canon does not apply 
rigidly to every such case, and the final decision depends upon 
the internal probabilities. Long associations render it difficult 
for a modern to do justice to x w P ts 6*ov. Yet x w P''s is elsewhere 
used by our author in a remarkable way, e.g. in g 2S x^P^ 
afxaprias o^d^arerai, and the question is whether x w P l<s $ €0 ^ here 
cannot be understood in an apt, although daring, sense. It 
may be (i) "forsaken by God," an allusion to the "dereliction" 
of Mk 15 34 (B. Weiss, Zimmer), though this would rather be put 
as arep 6eov. (ii) "Apart from his divinity" (see above), i.e. 
when Christ died, his divine nature survived. But this would 
require a term like rijs #eoV>7Tos. (iii) Taken with iravTos, "die 
for everyone (everything ?) except God " (Origen's view, adopted 
recently by moderns like Ewald and Ebrard). Of these (i) and 
(iii) are alone tenable. Even if (iii) be rejected, it furnishes 
a clue to the problem of the origin of the reading. Thus 
Bengel and others modify it by taking virep 7ravTo's = to master 
everything, x^pis Beov being added to explain that "everything" 
does not include God. It is possible, of course, that in the 
Latin rendering (ut gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem) 
gratia is an original nominative, not an ablative, and repre- 
sents x"P ts (Christ = the Grace of God), 1 which came to be 
altered into x^pt? and x°-P lTl - But, if x w P's £ °v is regarded as 
secondary, its origin probably lies in the dogmatic scruple of 
some primitive scribe who wrote the words on the margin as 
a gloss upon 7ravTo's, or even on the margin of v. 8 opposite ovhlv 
a^rjKcv avTw awrroTaKTov, whence it slipped lower down into the 
text. Upon the whole, it seems fairest to assume that at some 
very early stage there must have been a corruption of the text, 
which cannot be explained upon the available data. But at 
any rate x<*P tTt nts i n we ^ "with £7rp£7m, which immediately 
follows, and this is one point in its favour. It was x<*p""i @ € °v 
that Jesus died for everyone, and this was consonant with God's 
character (eTrpeirei yap avrw, i.e. dew). The nearest Latin 
equivalent for wpeVoi/, as Cicero (de Officiis, i. 26) said, was 
" decorum " (dulce et decorum est pro patria mori), and in this 
high sense the divine x°-P l * (4 16 )j shown in the wide range and 
object of the death of Jesus, comes out in the process and 

1 It was so taken by some Latin fathers like Primasius and by latei 
theologians of the Western church like Thomas of Aquinum and Sedulius 
Scotus, who depended on the Vulgate version. 


The writer now explains (vv. 10-18 ) why Jesus had to suffer 
and to die. Only thus could he save his brother men who lay 
(whether by nature or as a punishment, we are not told) under 
the tyranny of death. To die for everyone meant that Jesus had 
ro enter human life and identify himself with men ; suffering is 
the badge and lot of the race, and a Saviour must be a sufferer, 
if he is to carry out God's saving purpose. The sufferings of 
Jesus were neither an arbitrary nor a degrading experience, but 
natural, in view of what he was to God and men alike. For the 
first time, the conception of suffering occurs, and the situation 
which gave rise to the author's handling of the subject arose out 
of what he felt to be his readers' attitude. " We are suffering 
hardships on account of our religion." But so did Jesus, the 
writer replies. " Well, but was it necessary for him any more 
than for us ? And if so, how does that consideration help us in 
our plight ? " To this there is a twofold answer, (a) Suffering 
made Jesus a real Saviour ; it enabled him to offer his perfect 
sacrifice, on which fellowship with God depends, (b) He suffered 
not only for you but like you, undeigoing the same temptations 
to faith and loyalty as you have to meet. The threefold 
inference is : (i) do not give way, but realize all you have 
in his sacrifice, and what a perfect help and sympathy you 
can enjoy, (ii) Remember, this is a warning as well as an 
encouragement ; it will be a fearful thing to disparage a 
religious tie of such privilege. (iii) Also, let his example 
nerve you. 

10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was befitting that He for whom and 
by whom the universe exists, should perfect the Pioneer of their salvation by 
suffering (did trad rjixdruv, echoing 5id rb irdd-rjfxa rod davarov). u For 
sanctifier and sanctified have all one origin (e£ evos, sc. yevovs : neuter as Ac 
17 26 ). That is why he (6 ayidfav) is not ashamed to call them brothers, 
12 saying, 

" / will proclaim thy name to my brothers, 

in the midst of the church I will sing of thee" ; 

13 and again, 

"I will put my trust in him"; 
and again, 

" Here am I and the children God has given me." 

14 Since the children then (oZv, resuming the thought of v. lla ) share blood 
and files h, 1 he himself participated in their nature? so that by dying he might 
crush him who wields the power of death (that is to say, the devil), 15 and 
release from thraldom those who lay under a life-long fear of death. 16 (For 
of course it is not angels that "he succours," it is "the offspring of Abra- 
ham "). n He had to resemble his brothers in every respect, in oider to prove 
a merciful and faithful high priest in things divine, to expiate the sins of the 

1 ai'/xaTos koX crapKos (Eph 6 12 ) is altered into the more conventional aapKhs 
Kal a'ijxa.To% by, e.g., K L f vg syr pesh eth boh Theodoret, Aug. Jerome. 

2 aiiTuiv, i.e. aifiaros kul aapKos, not wad^ixo.Tuiv, which is wrongly added 
by D* d syr pal Eus. Jerome, Theodoret. 


People. x - It is as he suffered by hh temptations thai hi is able to help the 

It is remarkable (cp. Introd. p. xvi) that the writer does not 
connect the sufferings of Jesus with OT prophecy, either gener- 
ally (as, e.g., Lk 24 26 ov^t TauTa e&ei - iraOeiv tov Xpicrrdv ktX.), or 

with a specific reference to Is 53. He explains them on the 
ground of moral congruity. Here they are viewed from God's 
standpoint, as in 12 2 from that of Jesus himself. God's purpose 
of grace made it befitting and indeed inevitable that Jesus 
should suffer and die in fulfilling his function as a Saviour 
(v. 10 ) ; then (vv. llf -) it is shown how he made common cause 
with those whom he was to rescue. 

"Eirp€TT€y yap ktX. (v. 10 ). Upi-reiv or -rpi-rov, in the sense of 
" seemly," is not applied to God in the LXX, but is not un- 
common in later Greek, e.g. Lucian's Prometheus, 8 (ovre #eots 
-rpi-rov ovre. aAAws fiacriXiKov), and the de Mundo, 397^, 398^ (o /ecu 
-rpi-rov iarl /cat 0ew /tdAicrra ap/xo^ov — of a theory about the 
universe, however). The writer was familiar with it in Philo, 
who has several things to say about what it behoved God to do, 2 
though never this thing; Philo has the phrase, not the idea. 
According to Aristotle (Aic. Ethics, iv. 2. 2, to -rpi-rov St) -rp6<; 
avrov, koX iv w koli -repl o), what is " befitting " relates to the 
person himself, to the particular occasion, and to the object. 
Here, we might say, the idea is that it would not have done for 
God to save men by a method which stopped short of suffering 
and actual death. " Quand il est question des actes de Dieu, 
ce qui est convenable est toujours necessaire au point de vue 
metaphysique " (Reuss). In the description of God (for cwtw 
cannot be applied to Jesus in any natural sense) 81' or tc\ irdvTa 
KOi 81' ou Tci irdk'Ta, the writer differs sharply from Philo. The 
Alexandrian Jew objects to Eve (Gn 4 1 ) and Joseph (Gn 40 18 ) 
using the phrase Sta tov 6eov {Cherubim, 35), on the ground that 
it makes God merely instrumental ; whereas, 6 #e6? ahiov, ovk 
opyavov. On the contrary, we call God the creative cause 
(cutiov) of the universe, opyavov 81 Xoyov Otov 81 ov Ka.Teo-Keva.o~Or). 
He then quotes Ex 14" 13 to prove, by the use of -rapd, that 

ou 8iot 3 tow £)eov aXXa. Trap avrov u>s oItlov to o"a>£ecr#cu. But our 

author has no such scruples about Sid, any more than Aeschylus 
had {Agamemnon, i486, Sicu Ai6s 7ravaiTiou iravepyeTa). Like 
Paul (Ro ii 36 ) he can say 81' ov to. -rdvTa of God, adding, for 
the sake of paronomasia, St' ov to cover what Paul meant by 
i$ avTov /cat eis avrov. Or rather, starting with 84 ov tol -ravra he 

1 The d5</>ei\ep of v. 17 is not the same as this £5ei. 

2 Thus : Trpiir-L r<^ 0ey (pvrevetv ko.1 olicoSofieiv iv ij/vxy rds dperds (Leg. 
allcg. I 15). 

3 When he does use 8id (de opificio, 24) it is 5i' aiirod txbvov, of creation. 


prefers another 8id with a genitive, for the sake of assonance, 
to the more usual equivalent i£ ov or i<p' ov. To preserve the 
assonance, Zimmer proposes to render : " um dessentwillen das 
All, und durch dessen Willen das All." 

The ultimate origin of the phrase probably lies in the mystery-cults ; 
Aristides (Els rbv Sdpairic, 51 : ed. Dindorf, i. p. 87), in an invocation of 
Serapis, writes to this effect, irdvra yap iravraxov Sid gov re Kal Sid ere tj/juv 
ylyverai. But Greek thought in Stoicism had long ago played upon the use 
of Sid in this connexion Possibly Sid with the accusative was the primitive 
and regular expression, as Norden contends. 1 We call Zeus " ZtJj'o. Kal Ala " 
tl>? b\v el \iyoi/iev 81 8v $Cofxev, says the author of de Mundo (401a), like the 
older Stoics (see Arnim's Stoicorum veterum Fragmenla, ii. pp. 305, 312), 
and Sid with the accusative might have the same causal sense here, 2 i.e. 
" through," in which case the two phrases Si 6v and 81 oS would practicall) 
be a poetical reduplication of the same idea, or at least = " by whom and 
through whom." But the dominant, though not exclusive, idea of Si 8v here 
is final, " for whom " ; the end of the universe, of all history and creation, 
lies with Him by whom it came into being and exists ; He who redeems is 
He who has all creation at His command and under His control. 

The point in adding oV or ... to irdvTa to avruj is that the 
sufferings and death of Jesus are not accidental ; they form part 
of the eternal world-purpose of God. Philo had explained that 
Moses was called up to Mount Sinai on the seventh day, because 
God wished to make the choice of Israel parallel to the creation 
of the world (Quaest. in Exod. 24 16 /JoiAdpevo? k-m^Ci^at. on auros 
/cal tov Kocrfxov iSrjfjuovpyrjcre kcu to yeVo? eiAero. H Se avaK\r]cn<; 
to?) 7rpocj>y]TOv Seurepa ylveah Icttc t^s irporepas d/mVcov). But our 
author goes deeper ; redemption, he reiterates (for this had 
been hinted at in i 1 " 4 ), is not outside the order of creation. The 
distinction between the redeeming grace of God and the created 
universe was drawn afterwards by gnosticism. There is no 
conscious repudiation of such a view here, only a definite asser- 
tion that behind the redeeming purpose lay the full force of God 
the creator, that God's providence included the mysterious 
sufferings of Jesus His Son, and that these were in line with 
His will. 

In ttoXXous ulous the ttoXXol is in antithesis to the one and 
only dpxriyos, as in Ro 8 29 , Mk 14 24 . For the first time the 
writer calls Christians God's sons. His confidence towards the 
Father is in sharp contrast to Philo's touch of hesitation in De 
Confus. Ling. 28 (kolv /j.rj8eTru) yiivToi Tvy^dvr/ tis d^to^p£o>s wv vios 
deov 7rpoo-ayopeve<j9ai . . . Kal yap el p.r)Tra> tKavol deov TrcuSts,€o-6aL yeyoVapev). 'Ayayoi'Ta is devoid of any reference to 

1 Agnostos Tkeos, 347 f. (" Das ist die applikation der logisch-gramma- 
tischen Theorie iiber den Kasus, der in altester Terminologie, 17 xar alriav 
tttuxtls, heisst, auf die Physik : die Welt ist das Objekt der durch die hochste 
atria ausgeiibten Tatigkeit "). 

2 As in Apoc. 4 n and Epist. Aristeas, 16: 81 8v ^uoiroiovvrai t<x irdvra 
Kal ylverai (quoting Zrjva Kal Ala). 


past time. The aorist participle is used adverbially, as often, to 
denote "an action evidently in a general way coincident in time 
with the action of the verb, yet not identical with it. The 
choice of the aorist participle rather than the present in such 
cases is due to the fact that the action is thought of, not as in 
progress, but as a simple event or fact" (Burton, Moods and 
Tenses, 149). It is accusative instead of dative, agreeing with 
an implied avrov instead of avrw, by a common Greek assimila- 
tion (cp. e.g. Ac 11 12 15 22 22 17 25 27 ). The accusative and 
infinitive construction prompted ayayovra instead of dyayoV™. 
Had dyayorra been intended to qualify dpxrjyov, iroWovs would 
have been preceded by tov. The thought is : thus do men 
attain the So£a which had been their destiny (v. 7 ), but only 
through a Jesus who had won it for them by suffering. 

The mistaken idea that dyay6vra must refer to some action previous to 
reAeiwcrcu, which gave rise to the Latin rendering "qui adduxerat " (vg) or 
"multis filiis adductis" (vt), is responsible for the ingenious suggestion of 
Zimmer that 56£a denotes an intermediate state of bliss, where the dtiaioi of 
the older age await the full inheritance of the messianic bliss. It is possible 
(see below on n 40 12 23 ) to reconstruct such an idea in the mind of the writer, 
but not to introduce it here. 

The general idea in apxr]y6v is that of originator or personal 
source ; tovtzo-ti, tov oltiov t?}s o-ayrr/pia? (Chrysostom). It is 
doubtful how far the writer was determined, in choosing the 
term, by its varied associations, but the context, like that of I2 2 , 
suggests that the " pioneer " meaning was present to his mind ; 
Jesus was dpx"r|Y°s ttjs <rwTr|pias auiw in the sense that he led the 
way, broke open the road for those who followed him. This 
meaning, common in the LXX, recurs in Ac 5 31 {ap-^-qyov ko.1 
o-(DT7)pa), and suits dyaydvra better than the alternative sense of 
the head or progenitor — as of a Greek clan or colony. In this 
sense apxqyos is applied to heroes, and is even a divine title of 
Apollo as the head of the Seleucidae (OGIS. 212 13 , 219 26 ), as 
well as a term for the founder ( = conditor) or head of a philo- 
sophical school (Athenaeus, xiii. 563 E, tov apxyyov vp-wv tt/s 
o-ocpias Zv?vo)va). But the other rendering is more relevant. 
Compare the confession (in the Acts of Maximilianus) of the 
soldier who was put to death in 295 a.d. (Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, 
pp. 340 f.): "huic omnes Christiani servimus, hunc sequimur 
vitae principem, salutis auctorem." The sufferings of Jesus as 
dpx^yos o-hiTt}pia<i had, of course, a specific value in the eyes of 
the writer. He did not die simply in order to show mortals how 
to die ; he experienced death v-n-lp -n-avTo^, and by this unique 
suffering made it possible for "many sons" of God to enter the 
bliss which he had first won for them. Hence, to "perfect" 
(reXeiwaai) the apx-nyos au>TT]pias is to make him adequate, 


completely effective. What this involved for him we are not yet 
told ; later on (5 9 7 28 ) the writer touches the relation between 
the perfect ability of Christ and his ethical development through 
suffering (see below, v. 14 ), but meantime he uses this general 
term. God had to "perfect" Jesus by means of suffering, that 
he might be equal to his task as dpxrjyos or dpxiepeu's (v. 17 ) ; the 
addition of olvtwv to o-wnrjptas implies (see 7 26 ) that he himself 
had not to be saved from sin as they had. The underlying idea 
of the whole sentence is that by thus " perfecting " Jesus through 
suffering, God carries out his purpose of bringing " many sons " 
to bliss. 

The verb had already acquired a tragic significance in connexion with 
martyrdom ; in 4 Mac 7 15 {&" Jrtorr) 6o.v6.tov a<ppayh ereXeluoev) it is used of 
Eleazar's heroic death, and this reappeared in the Christian vocabulary, as, 
e.g., in the title of the Passio S. Perpetuae (/xaprvpiov ttjs aylas HepireTouas ko.1 
tG>v cvv aurrj TeXeiojdevTwv iv ' Aippucrj). But, although Philo had popu- 
larized the idea of reXevrav = re\e'icrdai, this is not present to our writer's 
mind ; he is thinking of God's purpose to realize a complete experience of 
forgiveness and fellowship (crwrripLa.) through the Son, and this includes and 
involves (as we shall see) a process of moral development for the Son. 

The writer now (v. 11 ) works out the idea suggested by iroXXous 
olous. Since Jesus and Christians have the same spiritual origin, 
since they too in their own way are " sons " of God, he is proud 
to call them brothers and to share their lot (vv. 11 " 13 ). The 
leader and his company are a unit, members of the one family of 
God. It is implied, though the writer does not explain the 
matter further, that Christ's common tie with mankind goes back 
to the pre-incarnate period ; there was a close bond between 
them, even before he was born into the world ; indeed the in- 
carnation was the consequence of this solidarity or vital tie (c£ 
evos, cp. Pindar, Nem. vi. 1, ev dvSpwv, ev 6e£>v yecos). *0 ayidt > un' 
and ot dyia^op.ev'oi are participles used as substantives, devoid of 
reference to time. Here, as at 13 12 , Jesus is assigned the divine 
prerogative of dyia^cir (cp. Ezk 20 12 eyw Kvpios 6 ayuuZfav avrovs, 
2 Mac i 25 , etc.), i.e. of making God's People His very own, by 
bringing them into vital relationship with Himself. It is another 
sacerdotal metaphor; the thought of i 3 (KaOapto-fxbv tw a/xapTiiav 
7rot^o-dyu.cvos) is touched again, but the full meaning of dyia£«v is 
not developed till o 13f -, where we see that to be "sanctified" is 
to be brought into the presence of God through the self-sacrifice 
of Christ ; in Other words, ayidteaOai = irpoaepxeo-Oai or eyyt'£eiy 
t(3 6ew, as in Nu 16 5 where the dyioi are those whom God 
7rpoo"^yayeTo irpo<; kavrov. 

According to (Akiba?) Mechilta, Jib (on Ex 20 18 ), God said to the angels 
at Sinai, "(Jo down and help your brothers" (orris-nx ?jrpi rrj) ; yet it 
was not merely the angels, but God himself, who helped them (the proof-text 
being Ca 2 6 !). 

II. 11-13.] JESUS AND MEN 33 

AC *ji» aiTiak' — a phrase only used elsewhere in the NT by the 
author of the Pastoral epistles — ouk ^rraurxuVcTcu kt\. 'Eiraurxu- 
vecrQai implies that he was of higher rank, being somehow vtos 6tov 
as they were not. The verb only occurs three times in LXX, twice 
of human shame (Ps 119 6 , Is i 29 ), and once perhaps of God 
( = abl) in Job 34 19 . In Test. Jos. 2 5 it is used passively (oi yap 

is avOpoy-n-o's l-traicrxvvvrai 6 6e6<>). In the gospels, besides Mk 3 34 '- 
and Mt 25 40 , there are slight traditions of the risen Jesus calling 
the disciples his dSeX^oi (Mt 28 10 , Jn 20 17 ); but the writer either 
did not know of them or preferred, as usual, to lead biblical 
proofs. He quotes three passages (vv. 12 - 13 ), the first from the 
22nd psalm (v. 23 ) taken as a messianic cry, the only change 
made in the LXX text being the alteration of Sir/yrjo-o/jLai into 
airayytku (a synonym, see Ps 55 18 ). The Son associates himself 
with his dScA^oi in the praise of God offered by their community 
(a thought which is echoed in 12 28 13 15 ). 

According to Justin Martyr {Dial. 106), Ps 22 22, ffl foretells how the risen 
Jesus stood iv fj.i<rcp tCjv &5e\(pu!v airrov, tQiv aTroarbXiov . . . ical /xer ai/rip 
didyuv v/ivr/ae rbv 0e6v, ws Kal iv to?s diro/j.vij/j.ov€VfjLacrtv tQv diroarbXuv 
SrjXovrat yeyevrinivav, and in the Acta Joannis (I I) Jesus, before going out to 
Gethsemane, says, Let us sing a hymn to the Father (iv fxia-iji 8t avrbs 7ev6- 
/j.evos). The couplet is quoted here for the sake of the first line ; the second 
fills it out. Our author only uses €KK\r](ria (12 23 ) of the heavenly host, never 
in its ordinary sense of the " church." 

The second quotation (v. 13a ) is from Is 8 17 ecrojiai TreiroiGws 
(a periphrastic future) eir J auTw, but the writer prefixes eyw to 
lo-o/xat for emphasis. The insertion of ipel by the LXX at the 
beginning of Is 8 17 helped to suggest that the words were not 
spoken by the prophet himself. The fact that Jesus required to 
put faith in God proves that he was a human being like ourselves 
(see 12 2 ). 

In Philo trustful hope towards God is the essential mark of humanity ; 
e.g. quod det. pot. 38 (on Gn 4 -26 ), rod 5i Kara Muvirrjv avdpdnrov diddecris ipvxys 
iirl rdv 6vtus 6vra debv iXiri^ovarjs. 

The third quotation (v. 13b ) is from the words which immedi- 
ately follow in Is 8 18 , where the LXX breaks the Hebrew 
sentence into two, the first of which is quoted for his own 
purposes by the writer. The iraiSio are God's children, the 
fellow viol of Christ. It is too subtle to treat, with Zimmer, the 
three quotations as (a) a resolve to proclaim God, as a man to 
men ; (b) a resolve to trust God amid the sufferings incurred in 
his mission, and (c) an anticipation of the reward of that mission. 
On the other hand, to omit the second koX ttoXlv as a scribal 
gloss (Bentley) would certainly improve the sense and avoid the 
necessity of splitting up an Isaianic quotation into two, the first 
of which is not strictly apposite. But koX irdXiv is similarly l 
1 It is a literary device of Philo in making quotations (cp. quis rer. div. 1). 


used in io 30 ; it is more easy to understand why such words should 

be omitted than inserted ; and the deliberate addition of cyw in 

the first points to an intentional use of the sentence as indirectly 

a confession of fellow-feeling with men on the part of the Son. 

The same words of the 22nd psalm are played upon by the Od. Sol 31 4 : 
"and he (i.e. messiah or Truth) lifted up his voice to the most High, and 
offered to Him the sons that were with him (or, in his hands)." 

In v. u KeKoivwyrjicev (here alone in the NT) takes the classical 
genitive, as in the LXX. An apt classical parallel occurs in the 
military writer Polyaenus (Strateg. iii. n. 1), where Chabrias tells 
his troops to think of their foes merely as avOpw-n-ois alp.a teal 
crapxa t)(ovo~i, kcu ttJs avTrjs <f>vo~eu><; r)plv KtKoivuivrjKOO'iv. The 
following phrase irapairXTjaicos ( = "similarly," i.e. almost "equally" 
or " also," as, e.g., in Maxim. Tyr. vii. 2, ko.1 ia-rlv ko.1 6 apx^v 
7roA.ea>s f«pos, ko.1 ol ap\6p.€voi TrapaTrXrjcriu) 1 ;) fiCTeo^ec . . . Xva kt\. 
answers to the thought of rjXa.TTUip.evov . . . Sia to TrdOrjpia kt\. 
above. The verb is simply a synonym for Koivwvelv ; in the 
papyri and the inscriptions /xcTe\etv is rather more common, but 
there is no distinction of meaning between the two. 

This idea (tva kt\.) of crushing the devil as the wielder of 
death is not worked out by the writer. He alludes to it in passing 
as a belief current in his circle, and it must have had some 
context in his mind ; but what this scheme of thought was, we 
can only guess. Evidently the devil was regarded as having a 
hold upon men somehow, a claim and control which meant 
death for them. One clue to the meaning is to be found in the 
religious ideas popularized by the Wisdom of Solomon, in which 
it is pretty clear that man was regarded as originally immortal 
(i 13 - 14 ), that death did not form part of God's scheme at the 
beginning, and that the devil was responsible for the introduction 
of death into the world (2 23 - 24 ); those who side with the devil 
encounter death (Treipd^ovcriv 8k avTov ol tt;? ckcivou p-epcSos ovtcs) 
which they bring upon themselves as a result of their sins. 
Robertson Smith (Expositor 2 , iii. pp. 76 f.) suggests another ex- 
planation, viz., that Jesus removes the fear of death by acting as 
our Highpriest, since (cp. Nu 18 5 ) the OT priests were respon- 
sible for averting death from the people, " the fear of death ' 
being "specially connected with the approach of an impure 
worshipper before God." This certainly paves the way for v. 17 , 
but it does not explain the allusion to the devil, for the illustra- 
tion of Zech 3 6f - is too remote. 

Corroborations of this idea are to be found in more quarters than one. (a) 
There is the rabbinic notion that the angel of death has the power of inflicting 
death, according to Pes. Kahana, 32. i89<£ ; Mechilta, 72a on Ex 20 20 (where 
Ps 82 s is applied to Israel at Sinai, since obedience to the Torah would have 
exempted them from the power of the angel of death), the angel of death 
being identified with the devil, (d) There is also the apocalyptic hope that 

II. 14, 15.] THE FEAR OF DEATH 35 

messiab at the end would crush the power of the devil, a hope expressed 
in the second-century conclusion (Freer-Codex) to Mark, where the risen 
Christ declares that "the limit (or term, 6 8pos) of years for Satan's power has 
now expired." (c) Possibly the author as-umed and expanded Paul's view of 
death as the divine punishment for sin executed by the devil, and of Christ's 
death as a satisfaction which, by iemoving this curse of the law, did away 
with the devil's hold on sinful mortals. Theodoret's explanation [Dial, iii.) is 
that the sinlessness of Christ's human nature freed human nature from sin, 
which the devil had employed to enslave men : eireidr] yap rifj.wpia rdv a/tap- 
tt]k6twv 6 ddvaros rjv, rb 5£ o~u>[/.a rb KvpiaKbv ovk %x ov afxaprias KtjX'iba o irapa 
rbv Beiov vdjxov 6 clSLkus i^-qptraaev, avto~TT]o~e /j.Zv irpQ/rov rb Trapavd/xois 
Karaaxediv HireiTa dt Kal rots evSLicws Kadeipy/J.ii'ois inricrxeTO ttjc d,7raXXa7^i'. 

The force of the paradox in Sid toG GaraTou (to which the 
Armenian version needlessly adds airov) is explained by 
Chrysostom : oY ov eKpaTrjaev 6 Sid/3oAos, Sid tovtov rjTTrjdr]. As 
the essence of awTrjpia is life, its negative aspect naturally 
involves emancipation from death. "E^eiv to Kparos tov Oavarov 
means to wield the power of death, i.e. to have control of death. 
£^€iv to K/aaros with the genitive in Greek denoting lordship in 
a certain sphere, e.g. Eurip. Helena, 68 (tis twvS' ipvp-viLv Sw/autwv 
l^€i Kparos ;). 'AiraXXdlT] goes with SovAeias (as in Joseph. Ant. 
I 3* *3 (363), tt/s vtto tois i\8po7^ airovs SouAeids . . . a7raA- 
Adrmv, etc.), which is thrown to the end of the sentence for 
emphasis, after 00-01 . . . rjo-av which qualifies toutous. "Evo^oi 
is a passive adjective, equivalent to ivex°f Jiev0l > " bound by " (as 
in Demosthenes, 1229), and goes with cpofiw Oavarov, which is 
not a causal dative. "Oo-oi in Hellenistic Grtek is no more than 
the ordinary relative 01. Aid iravTos tou £fji>, not simply in old 
age, as Musonius (ed. Hense, xvii.) thinks : ko.\ to ye dOXuDTarov 
ttoiovv rbv fiiov tois yepovo'iv airb iariv, 6 tov Oavdrov </>d/?o?. 
Aristeas (130, 141, 168) uses oY 6\ov tov £f)v, but Sid 7mi/Tos tov 
tfiv is an unparalleled (in NT Greek) instance of an attribute in 
the same case being added to the infinitive with a preposition. 
There is a classical parallel in the Platonic Sid 7rai'Tos tov civat 
(Parmenides, 152 E); but to t,rjv had already come to be 
equivalent to 6 fiios. 

The enslaving power of fear in general is described by 
Xenophon in the Cyropaedia, iii. 1. 23 f . : oiet ovv ti /aSAAov 
KaTa8ov\ovo~0ai dv^poWous tou lo~)(vpov cpo/3ov ; . . . ovtu} TrdvT(DV 
twv Seivwv 6 (pofios /xdAicrTa KaTaTr\rjTT€i Tas i//iry/*S. Here it !S the 

fear of death, or rather of what comes after death, which is 
described. The Greek protest against the fear of death (cp. 
Epict. iii. 36. 28), as unworthy of the wise and good, is echoed 
by Philo {quod omnis probus liber, 3, liraivCnai irapd tlo-iv 6 
Tpip.e.Tpov l/ceivo 7roiT/o-as' "tis eo~Ti SouAos, tov Qavtiv dcppovTis wv ; " 
<Ls /xdAa o~uviSa>v to S.k6\ov9ov. YTre'Aa^c jdp, otl ovSev ovto) 
SovXovaOai TricpVKe Sidroiav, ax; to IttX 6avaTu> Se'os, eveKa tov 7r/)6s 

to ifiv Ifiipov). But the fear persisted, as we see from writers 


like Seneca (" optanda mors est sine metu mortis mori," Troades, 
869) and Cicero ; the latter deals with the fear of death in De 
Finibus, v. n, as an almost universal emotion ("fere sic afnci- 
untur omnes "). Lucretius as a rationalist had denounced it 
magnificently in the De Rerum Natura, which " is from end to 
end a passionate argument against the fear of death and the 
superstition of which it was the basis. The fear which he 
combated was not the fear of annihilation, but one with which 
the writer of this Epistle could sympathize, the fear of what 
might come after death ; ' aeternas quoniam poenas in morte 
timendum est ' (i. 1 1 1) " (VVickham). The fear of death as death 
(cp. Hamack's History of Dogma, iii. 180) has been felt even 
by strong Christians like Dr. Johnson. But our author has 
more in view. Seneca's epistles, for example, are thickly strewn 
with counsels against the fear of death ; he remonstrates with 
Lucilius on the absurdity of it, discusses the legitimacy of 
suicide, if things come to the worst, points out that children and 
lunatics have no such fear {Ep. xxxvi. 12), and anticipates most 
of the modern arguments against this terror. Nevertheless, he 
admits that it controls human life to a remarkable extent, even 
though it is the thought of death, not death itself, that we dread 
{Ep. xxx 17); he confesses that if you take anyone, young, 
middle-aged, or elderly, "you will find them equally afraid of 
death" (xxii. 14). And his deepest consolation is that death 
cannot be a very serious evil, because it is the last evil of all 
("quod extremum est," Ep. iv. 3) Now the author of Hpb<; 
'EfipaLovs sees more beyond death than Seneca. " After death, 
the judgment." The terror which he notes in men is inspired by 
the fact that death is not the final crisis (q 27 ). "Ultra (*.*. post 
mortem) neque curae neque gaudio locum esse," said Sallust. 
It was because a primitive Christian did see something " ultra 
mortem," that he was in fear, till his hope reassured him (9 28 ). 

It is noteworthy that here (vv. 14- 15 ) and e'sewhere our author, not un- 
like the other 5i5ci<r/<a\os who wrote the epistle of James, ignores entirely the 
idea of the devil as the source of temptation ; he does not even imply the 
conception of the devil, as 1 Peter does, as the instigator of persecution. 

In one of his terse parentheses the writer now (v. 16 ) adds, 
ou yap StJttou ayyiXuv eTri.\au.J3deeTai. Ayirov is the classical term 
for "it need hardly be said" or "of course," and €ViA.a/A/3uv6o-#ai 
means "to SUCCOUr" (Sir 4 11 rj crocpta vlovs iavrfj avvif/waev, /ecu 

€7riAa/z/?<ii'€Tai tw £yjtovvtwv avrrjv). If it meant " seize " or 
"grip," OdvaTos (i.e. either death, or the angel of death, cp. v. 14 ) 
might be taken as the nominative, the verse being still a 
parenthesis. This idea, favoured by some moderns, seems to 
lie behind the Syriac version (cp. A. Bonus, Expository Times, 
xxxiii. pp. 234-236); but iTrtXa/xfidvecrOat. here corresponds to 

II. 16, 17.] THE AID OF JESUS 37 

Pot)0t}<tcu in v. 18 , and is used in the same good sense as in the 
other quotation in S 9 . The words dXXd aTrepparos 'Af3padp 
tiriXafiPaKCTai may be a reminiscence of Is 41 s - 9 where God 
reassures Israel : anrippa 'A/Jpadp, . . . ov avTeXa /36p.r}v. The 
archaic phrase was perhaps chosen, instead of a term like 
avOpwirwv, 1 on account of Abraham's position as the father of the 
faithful (see n 8f -). Paul had already claimed it as a title for 
all Christians, irrespective of their birth : ovk Zvi 'IovScuos ovh\ 
"EXX??v . . . «t Se iiybuts XpioTov, apa tot) 'Afipaap. o-7rtpp.a leni 
(Gal 3 28 - 29 ), and our author likes these archaic, biblical peri- 
phrases. He repeats iTn\ap.f3dvtrai after 'A/Spad/*, to make a 
rhetorical antistrophe (see Introd. p. lvii). 

It is a warning against the habit of taking the Greek fathers as absolute 
authorities for the Greek of Tlpds 'Efipalovs, that they never suspected the real 
sense of €iri\afj.j3dverai here. To them it meant "appropriates" (the nature 
of). When Castellio (Chatillon), the sixteenth century scholar, first pointed 
out the true meaning, Beza pleasantly called his opinion a piece of cursed 
impudence ("execranda Castellionis audacia qui iwiKaupdveTai convertit 
' opitulatur,' non modo falsa sed etiam inepta interpretatione "). The mere 
fact that the Greek fathers and the versions missed the point of the word is 
a consideration which bears, e.g., upon the interpretation of a word like 
inrocrTaais in 3 14 and II 1 . 

The thought of vv. 14 - 15 is now resumed in v. 17 ; oQev (a 
particle never used by Paul) w<j>eiXev (answering to iirprn-w) 
Kcrrd irdcTa (emphatic by position) tois d8eX4)ois 6p,oiaj0r}kai — 
resembling them in reality, as one brother resembles another 
(so Test. Naphtali I 8 o/xoio's pov t/v Kcrrd iravra 'Ioktt^). In 
what follows, cXerjpwc 2 is put first for emphasis (as the writer is 
about to speak of this first), and goes like ma-ros with dpxiepeo's. 
"Quae verba sic interpretor : ut misericors esset, ideoque 
fidelis," Calvin argues. But this sequence of thought is not 
natural; loyalty to God's purpose no doubt involved compassion 
for men, but Christ was 7n.'o-Tos as he endured stedfastly the 
temptations incurred in his -n-XeiWis as dpx^yos. He suffered, 
but he never swerved in his vocation. Nor can 7rto-Tos here 
mean "reliable" (Seeberg, Der Tod Christi, 17), i.e. reliable be- 
cause merciful ; the idea of his sympathy as an encouragement 
to faith is otherwise put (cp. 4 14f - i2 lf> ). The idea of TeXeiwaai 
in v. 10 is being explicitly stated ; the sufferings of Christ on earth 
had a reflex influence upon himself as Saviour, fitting him for 
the proper discharge of his vocation. But the v< cation is 
described from a new angle of vision ; instead of apxvyo* or 
6 dyid£wr, Jesus is suddenly (see Introd. p. xxv) called dpxiepev's, 

1 Cosmas Indicopleustes correctly interpreted the phrase : tovt(cti 
<rd)[j.a.Tos Kai i/'i'X''? 5 ^oyLKrjs (372 B). 

2 The seer in Enoch 40 1 ' 10 has a vision of the four angels who intercede 
for Israel before God ; the first is " Michael, the merciful and longsuffering." 


evidently a term familiar to the readers (dpxt-epea t^s opoAoyias 
rjjxwv, 3 2 ). The prestige of the highpriest in the later Judaism 
is plain in rabbinic (e.g. Berachoth, Joma) tradition and also in 
apocalyptic. The Maccabean highpriests assumed the title of 
lepev<; tov deov tov vif/iaTov (Ass. Mosis, 6 1 ; Jubilees, 32 1 ), and the 
ritual of the day of atonement, when he officiated on behalf of 
the people, was invested with a special halo. This is the point 
of the allusion here, to the dp^iepcv's expiating the sins of the 
people. Philo had already used the metaphor to exalt the 
functions of his Logos as a mediator : 6 8' airos iKen/s peV Icttl 
tov dvrjrov KrjpaivovTOS dei 7rpos to dcpOapTov, 7rp€o-/3e 117775 8e tov 
■qye/xoVos Trpo? to vttyJkoov (guis rerum div. heres, 42). But, while 
the term i/ceV^s does imply some idea of intercession, this is 
not prominent in Philo's cosmological and metaphysical scheme, 
as it is in our epistle, which carefully avoids the Philonic 
idea that men can propitiate God (/3ovXeTm yap avrov 6 vopos 
p,€i£ovos fi.e /xo 1 paa 8 at cpvaew; ?) kclt dvOpmirov, iyyvrepw TrpocnovTa. 
T?}s #£ias, p.e66piov, el Set raXrjdk'i Xeyecv, dfxcpoLv, Iva Sid p.eo~ov 
Tivos av8pw7roi jxev tXacr/caii'Tai deov, 6e6<; Se Tas ^dpiTa? avOpwiroLS 
VTroStaKOvit) tlvl ^paj/xcvos opeyrj Koii X PVyV' De Spec. Leg. i. 12). 
Again, Philo explains (de sacerdot. 12) that the highpriest was 
forbidden to mourn, when a relative died, Iva. . . . KpeiTTwv 
olktov yevo'pevo?, aXv-iro 1 ; eh del SiaTeAr/. This freedom from the 
ordinary affections of humanity was part of his nearer approxi- 
mation to the life of God (eyyvrepu) TrpocriovTa rrjs OeCa.% 
[4>vo-e<i>s]). But our author looks at the function of Christ as 
dpxifpfi;? differently ; the first word to be used about him in this 
connexion is iXerjp.wv, and, before passing on to develop the idea 
of 7T6o-to's, the writer adds (v. 18 ) another word upon the practical 
sympathy of Christ. In resembling his dSeXcpol Kara iravrd 
Christ TriirovOev irupao-Qeh. His death had achieved for them 
an emancipation from the dread of death (v. 14 ); by entering 
into glory he had expiated the sins of God's People, thereby 
securing for them a free and intimate access to God. But the 
process by means of which he had thus triumphed was also of 
value to men ; it gave him the experience which enabled him by 
sympathy to enter into the position of those who are tempted 
as he was, and to furnish them with effective help. The con- 
nexion between v. 18 (with its ydp) and v. 17 does not rest upon 
the idea of Christ as iXerjfxwv nal ttio-tos dp-^iepevs, as though the 
effective help received from Christ were a constant proof that he 
expiates sins, i.e. maintains us in the favour and fellowship of 
God (Seeberg). It rests on the special idea suggested by 
eXerjp.wv. " His compassion is not mere pity for men racked 
... by pain in itself, however arising ; it is compassion for 
men tempted by sufferings towards sin or unbelief" (A. B. 


Davidson). What the writer has specially in mind is the agony 
in Gethsemane (cp. s 7f -) as the culminating experience of sorrow 
caused by the temptation to avoid the fear of death or the cross. 
The adverbial accusative t& irpds tov 0eoV here, as in 5 1 , is a 
fairly common LXX phrase (e.g. Ex 4 16 (of Moses), av ok avriZ 
lo~rj to. 7rpo? tov 6eov). c lXd«TK€a0ai -rds dpapTias is also a LXX 
phrase, an expression for pardon or expiation, as in Ps 65* (to? 
dcreySetas rjfxwv o-v lAdo-?/), which never occurs again in the NT. 
When the verb (middle voice) is used of God's dealings with 
men, it generally takes the person of the sinner as its object 
in the dative (as Lk 18 13 , the only other NT instance of 
IXdo-KecrOai) or else sins in the dative (reus dyxaprtais is actually 
read here by A 5. 33. 623. 913, Athan. Chrys. Bentley, etc.). 
This removal of sins as an obstacle to fellowship with God 
comes under the function of 6 dyid£wc. The thought reappears 
in 7 25 and in 1 Jn 2 2 (koX auros iXa(T/i.ds icmv). 

6 Xa6s (tov 6eov) is the writer's favourite biblical expression for the church, 
from the beginning to the end ; he never distinguishes Jews and Gentiles. 

The introduction of the Treipacr/xoL of Jesus (v. 18 ) is as 
abrupt as the introduction of the dpxiepev's idea, but is thrown 
out by way of anticipation. 'Ev u ydp = iv tovtw lv <S (causal) or 
on, explaining not the sphere, but the reason of his " help," 
TreTTOwOei/ au-rds ireipao-Geis — the participle defining the Trdo-^eiv (a 
term never applied to Jesus by Paul) : he suffered by his tempta- 
tions, the temptations specially in view being temptations to 
avoid the suffering that led to the cross. This is the situation 
of the readers. They are in danger of slipping into apostasy, of 
giving up their faith on account of the hardships which it in- 
volved. Ot 7T€ipa^o'p,€voi are people tempted to flinch and falter 
under the pressure of suffering. Life is hard for them, and faith 
as hard if not harder. Courage, the writer cries, Jesus under- 
stands ; he has been through it all, he knows how hard it is to 
bear suffering without being deflected from the will of God. 
Grammatically, the words might also read: "For he himself, 
having been tempted by what he suffered, is able to help those 
who are tempted." The sense is really not very different, for 
the particular temptations in view are those which arise out 
of the painful experience of having God's will cross the natural 
inclination to avoid pain. But the 1re1pa.0~fx.01 of Jesus were 
not simply due to what he suffered. He was strongly tempted 
by experiences which were not painful at all — e.g. by the re- 
monstrance of Simon Peter at Caesarea Philippi. As Ritschl 
puts it, "Christ was exposed to temptation simply because a 
temptation is always bound up with an inclination which is at 
the outset morally legitimate or permissible. It was the impulse. 


in itself lawful, of self-preservation which led to Christ's desire to 
be spared the suffering of death. And this gave rise to a tempta- 
tion to sin, because the wish collided with his duty in his 
vocation. Christ, however, did not consent to this temptation. 
He renounced his self-preservation, because he assented to the 
Divine disposal of the end of his life as a consequence of his 
vocation " {Rechtjertigung u. Versohnung, Hi. 507 ; Eng. tr. p. 573). 
On the suffering that such temptation involved, see below on 5 s . 
BoTjOeir and IXdaKccrOai tcus djiapTiats occur side by side in 
the prayer of Ps 79 9 (LXX). Are they synonymous here? Is 
the meaning of to iXdo-Keo-0ai Tas d/xaprt'as tov Xaov that Christ 
constantly enables us to overcome the temptations that would 
keep us at a distance from God or hinder us from being at peace 
with God? (so, e.g., Kurtz and M'Leod Campbell, The Nature of 
the Atonement, pp. 172-174). The meaning is deeper. The 
help conveyed by the sympathy of Jesus reaches back to a 
sacrificial relationship, upon which everything turns. Hence the 
ideas of eXcTjpwi/ and mo-Tos are now developed, the latter in 3 1 " 6 *, 
the former in 4 14f -, 3 6b -4 13 being a practical application of what 
is urged in 3 1 " 6 *. But the writer does not work out the thought 
of Christ as ttio-tos in connexion with his function as dp^tepcus, 
even though he mentions the latter term at the outset of his 
appeal, in which the stress falls on the expiatory work of Christ. 

1 Holy brothers (dyioi = ol ayia^Sfievoi, 2 U ), you who participate in a 
heavenly calling, look at Jesus then (5dev in the light of what has just been 
said), at the apostle and highpriest of our confession ; 2 he is " faithful" to 
Him who appointed him. For while " Moses" also was "faithful in every 
department of God's house" 3 Jesus (ovtos, as in IO 12 ) has been adjudged greater 
glory (56£t]s) than (irapa, as I 4 ) Moses, inasmuch as the founder of a house 
enjoys greater honour (ti/xtiv, a literary synonym for dd^rjv) than the house 
itself. * (Every house is founded by some one, but God is the founder of all.) 
6 Besides, while " Moses " was "faithful in every department of God's house " 
as an attendant — by way of witness to the coming revelation — 6 Christ is 
faithful as a son over God's house. 

In v. 2 8X<i> (om. p 13 B sah boh Cyr. Amb.) may be a gloss from v. 8 . In 
v. 8 the emphasis on wXeiovos is better maintained by oCros 5<5£t/s (n A B C D P 
vt Chrys.) than by dofrs oCros (p 13 K L M 6. 33. 104. 326. 1 175. 1288 vg) or 
by the omission of oCros altogether (467 arm Basil). In v. 4 iravTa has been 
harmonized artificially with I s 2 10 by the addition of r<£ (C° LP* 104. 326. 
1 175. 1 1 28 Athan.). 

For the first time the writer addresses his readers, and as 
doe\(f>o! dyioi (only here in NT, for dyi'ois in 1 Th 5 s7 is a later 
insertion), kXtjo^ws cirouptmou fieVoxoi (6 4 etc., cp. Ps 119 63 fxiroxoi 
iyw clfii ndvTiov twv (fio/3ovfx.ivwv o~e, Ep. Anst. 207 ; de Mu?ido, 
AfOib). In Ph 3 14 the avu> kX^o-js is the prize conferred at the 
end upon Christian faith and faithfulness. Here there may be a 
side allusion to 2 11 (dScAcpovs avrovs xaXctv). In KaTai'O'po-aTe (a 
verb used in this general sense by Ep. Aristeas, 3, 7rpos 10 


Trepupyws tcl 6eia KaTavoeiv) ktX., the writer summons his readers 
to consider Jesus as 77-10-1-05 ; but, instead of explaining why or 
how Jesus was loyal to God, he uses this quality to bring out 
two respects (the first in vv. 2a - 4 , the second in vv. 6-6a ) in which 
Jesus outshone Moses, the divinely-commissioned leader and 
lawgiver of the People in far-off days, although there is no tone 
of disparagement in the comparison with Moses, as in the com- 
parison with the angels. 

In the description of Jesus as tcV dirdcn-oXoi' ieal dpxiepe'a Tfjs 
o/jLoXoyias vpwv, 6/xoAoyt'a is almost an equivalent for "our re- 
ligion," as in 4 14 (cp. io 23 ). 1 Through the sense of a vow (LXX) 
or of a legal agreement (papyri and inscriptions), it had naturally 
passed into the Christian vocabulary as a term for the common 
and solemn confession or creed of faith. 'Hfiwv is emphatic. 
In "our religion" it is Jesus who is d?rdcrToAos koX dp^iepct's, not 
Moses. This suits the context better than to make the antithesis 
one between the law and the gospel (Theophyl. ov yap 1-775 Kara. 

vofiov Xarpelas dp^iepei's iaTLV, a\Xa t>}s i/yuertpas 7n.'crTea)s). Possibly 

the writer had in mind the Jewish veneration for Moses which 
found expression during the second century in a remark of rabbi 
Jose ben Chalafta upon this very phrase from Numbers (Sifre, 
§ no) : "God calls Moses 'faithful in all His house,' and thereby 
he ranked higher than the ministering angels themselves." The 
use of diTooToXos as an epithet for Jesus shows " the fresh cre- 
ative genius of the writer and the unconventional nature of his 
style" (Bruce). Over half a century later, Justin (in Apol. i 12 ) 

Called Jesus Christ tou ?raTpds Tzavrwv kox BecnroTov Beov ulds kcu 

a7roo-ToA.os wv, and in Apol. i 03 described him as dyycXos koX 

d-rdcrToXos' avTOS yap diTayyeXXei 00a Sei yvuifrdrjvai, /ecu a7rocr- 

i-e'XAtTcu, fjL-qvvo-wv 00a dyye'AAei-cu (the connexion of thought here 
possibly explains the alteration of Suiyi/Vo/xcu into d7rayyeAw in 
He 2 12 ). Naturally Jesus was rarely called dyy«Xos; but it was 
all the easier for our author to call Jesus dTrdo-ToXos, as he avoids 
the term in its ecclesiastical sense (cp. 2 3 ). For him it carries 
the usual associations of authority ; d7rdo-ToXos is Ionic for Trpea- 
/3evTr;s, not a mere envoy, but an ambassador or representative 
sent with powers, authorized to speak in the name of the person 
who has dispatched him. Here the allusion is to 2 3 , where the 
parallel is with the Sinaitic legislation, just as the allusion to 
Jesus as dpxiepeus recalls the 6 dyid£wv of 2 n - 17 . On the other 
hand, it is not so clear that any explicit antithesis to Moses is 
implied in dp^tcpe'a, for, although Philo had invested Moses with 

1 Had it not been for these other references it might have been possible to 
take t. 6. 7;. here as =" whom we confess." The contents of the o/ioXoyia 
are suggested in the beliefs of 6 lf- , which form the fixed principles and stand, 
ards of the community, the Truth (io" 6 ) to which assent was given at baptisra. 


highpriestly honour (praem. et poen. 9, tv-v^wci . . . apyiipuxrvvt)^ 
de vita Mosis, ii. I, yap irpovoia 6eov . . . dp^ie/stus), this 
is never prominent, and it is never worked out in " Hebrews." 

The reason why they are to look at Jesus is (v. 2 ) his faithful- 
ness tw TToiTJaarri auToe, where iroieiv means "to appoint" to an 

office (as I S I2 6 Kvpios 6 Troi^cras tov Mu>vo~rjv kcu tov 'Aapwv, 

Mk 3 14 Kol €7roLr]o-€v SwScKa). This faithfulness puts him above 
Moses for two reasons. First (vv. 2b - 4 ), because he is the founder 
of the House or Household of God, whereas Moses is part of the 
House. The text the writer has in mind is Nu 1 2 1 (oix outws 
6 depdirotv /xov Mojuot??' iv oA.a> T(p olku) p.ov 7rirjTos icmv), and the 
argument of v. 3 , where oIkos, like our " house," includes the sense 
of household or family, 1 turns on the assumption that Moses be- 
longed to the oikos in which he served so faithfully. How Jesus 
" founded " God's household, we are not told. But there was an 
otKo? Oeov before Moses, as is noted later in ii 2 - 25 , a line of 
Trpeo-fivrepoi who lived by faith ; and their existence is naturally 
referred to the eternal Son. The founding of the Household is 
part and parcel of the creation of the rd irdvra (i 2 - 3 ). Kara- 
arK€vdt,iLv includes, of course (see g 2 - 6 ), the arrangement of the oTkos 
(cp. Epict. i. 6. 7-10, where Karao-Kevd^w is similarly used in the 
argument from design). The author then adds an edifying aside, 
in v. 4 , to explain how the 0**05 was God's (v. 2 avrov), though 
Jesus had specially founded it. It would ease the connexion of 
thought if 0eo9 meant (as in i 8 ?) "divine "as applied to Christ 
(so, e.g., Cramer, M. Stuart), or if ovtos could be read for tfeo's, 
as Blass actually proposes. But this is to rewrite the passage. 
Nor can we take aiTov in v. 6a as " Christ's " ; there are not two 
Households, and 77-as (v. 4 ) does not mean " each " (so, e.g., 
Reuss). Avrov in vv. 2 - 5 and 6a must mean " God's." He as 
creator is ultimately responsible for the House which, under him, 
Jesus founded and supervises. 

This was a commonplace of ancient thought. Justin, e.g., observes: 
MevdvBpCj) t£ k<i>iaik$ ko.1 tois ravra <p7\aa.<n ravra <t>pa^o^€V fiel^ova yap rbv 
drjfXLOnpybv tov aKevafo/xevov aTrecp-qvaro {Apol. I 20 ). It had been remarked by 
Philo {De Plant. 16) : Scrip yap 6 KTTjcra/j.ei>os rb KTrj/j.a tov /cTTj/xaros Aftelvuv 
kcu rd TreiroirjKbs tov yeyovdros, ToaovTtp (3ao-CkiKurrepoi aicelpoi, and in Legu/n 
Allegor. iii. 32 he argues that just as no one would ever suppose that a furnished 
mansion had been completed &vev t^x^V^ Kal Si]/xiovpyov, so anyone entering 
and studying the universe ucnrep eh fj.eyio-TT)v olidav Jj ir6\iv would naturally 
conclude that ty nal icmv 6 roDSe tov vavTos byniovpybs 6 debs. 

The usual way of combining the thought of v. 4 with the context is indicated 
by Lactantius in proving the unity of the Father and the Son (diuin. instit. iv. 
29) : " When anyone has a son of whom he is specially fond (quern unice 
diligat), a son who is still in the house and under his father's authority (in 
manu patris) — he may grant him the name and power of lord (nomen 

1 Our author avoids (see on 2 12 ) iKK\t\<jia, unlike the author of 1 Ti 3 18 who 
writes iv otntp deov, tjtis icnlv iKKK-qaia tov Oeov. 


domini potestatemque), yet by civil law (civili iure) the house is one, and one 
is called lord. So this world is one house of God, and the Son and the 
Father, who in harmony (unanimos) dwell in the world, are one God." 

The second ( 5 " 6a ) proof of the superiority of Jesus to Moses 
is now introduced by «at. It rests on the term Oepd-n-wi' used of 
Moses in the context (as well as in Nu n 11 i2 7 - 8 etc. ; of Moses 
and Aaron in Wis io 16 18 21 ); Oepdirwv is not the same as 80OA09, 
but for our author it is less than vios, and he contrasts Moses as 
the Oepairuiv iv to otKu> with Jesus as the Son inl rbv oTkov, hrl 
used as in IO 21 (lepea yae'yav eVi tov oXkov rov deov) and Mt 25 21,23 

(e7ri oAtya ^s ttio-tos). Moses is " egregius domesticus fidei tuae " 
(Aug. Con/, xii. 23). The difficult phrase els to ixapTupioy twv 
\a\Tj0rjcropeVui' means, like 9 9 , that the position of Moses was one 
which pointed beyond itself to a future and higher revelation ; 
the tabernacle was a o-Krjv-q rov papTvplov (Nu 12 5 ) in a deep 
sense. This is much more likely than the idea that the faith- 
fulness of Moses guaranteed the trustworthiness of anything he 
said, or even that Moses merely served to bear testimony of what 
God revealed from time to time (as if the writer was thinking of 
the words o-ro'/xa Kara crTopLa XaXrja-oi aura) which follow the above- 
quoted text in Numbers). 

The writer now passes into a long appeal for loyalty, which 
has three movements (3 6b - 19 4.1-10 4 11 - 13 ). The first two are con- 
nected with a homily on Ps 95 7 " 11 as a divine warning against 
the peril of apostasy, the story of Israel after the exodus from 
Egypt being chosen as a solemn instance of how easy and fatal it 
is to forfeit privilege by practical unbelief. It is a variant upon 
the theme of 2 2 - 3 , suggested by the comparison between Moses 
and Jesus, but there is no comparison between Jesus and Joshua ; 
for although the former opens up the Rest for the People of 
to-day, the stress of the exhortation falls upon the unbelief and 
disobedience of the People in the past. 

6 Now we are this house of God {ov, from the preceding clvtov), if we will 
only keep confident and proud of our hope. 7 Therefore, as the holy Spirit says : 
" Today, when (i<iv, as in I Jn 2^) you hear his voice, 
8 harden not (fir) <TK\vpvvr)Te, aor. subj. of negative entreaty) your hearts as 
at the Provocation, 
on the day of the Temptation in the desert, 
9 where (ov — 8-rrov as Dt 8 15 ) your fathers put me to the proof , 

10 and for forty years felt what I could do. " 
Therefore " /grew exasperated with that generation, 
1 said, ' They are always astray in their heart ' ; 
they would not learn my ways ; 

11 so (lis consecutive) / swore in my anger 

1 they shall never {d — the emphatic negative CN in oaths) enter my Pest,'" 

12 Brothers, take care in case there is a wicked, unbelieving heart in any oj 
you, moving you to apostatize from the living God. 13 Rather admonish one 
another (eavrovs = dAXijAoi/s) daily, so long as this word " Today" is uttered, 
that none of you may be deceived by sin and " hardened." 14 For we only 


participate in Christ provided that we keep firm to the very end the confidence 
with which we started, 16 this word ever sounding in our ears : 
" Today, when you hear hii voice, 
harden not your hearts as at the Provocation." 
16 Who heard and yet '■'provoked" him? Was it not all who left Egypt 
under the leadership of Moses? 17 And with whom was he exaperated for 
forty years ? Was it not with those who sinned, whose ' ' corpses l fell in the 
desert"? 18 And to whom "did he swear that they (sc. avrovs) would never 
enter his Rest " ? To whom but those who disobeyed (a.ireidijaaai.v, cp. Ac ig 9 ) ? 
19 Thus (ko.1 consecutive) we see it was owing to unbelief that they could not 

In v. 6 {a) ov is altered into 6<t by D* M 6. 424 Lat Lucifer, Ambr. Pris- 
cillian, probably owing to the erroneous idea that the definite article (supplied 
by 440. 2005) would have been necessary between o5 and oIkos. (b) iav is 
assimilated to the text of v. 14 by a change to iavirep in n° A C D c K L W 
syr hkl Lucifer, Chrys. etc. (von Soden). (<r) After <?\tti5os the words ;ix<?XP' 
TtXovs pepaiav are inserted from v. 14 by a number of MSS ; the shorter, 
correct text is preserved in p 13 B 1739 sah eth Lucifer, Ambrose. 

V. 6b introduces the appeal, by a transition from 6a . When 
Philo claims that irappr|ixia is the mark of intelligent religion 
(quis rer. div. haeres, 4, rots pikv ovv a/xaOeo-t avp.tpi.pov rjo-vxia, 
tois Sc (.TTLCTTrjix-qs i<f>UjjL€Vois kcu ayaa <^tAoSeo-7rdroi? avayKaiorarov tj 

irapprja-ia KTrjp.a), he means by Trapprjaia the confidence which is 
not afraid to pray aloud : cp. ib. 5 (Trapprjala Sc <ptXtas truyycvcs, 
cVei 7rpos Ttva av tis 17 7rpos t6v kavTOv cpiXov irappyjcriacraiTO ;), where 

the prayers and remonstrances of Moses are explained as a proof 
that he was God's friend. But here as elsewhere in the NT 
Trapprjma has the broader meaning of " confidence" which already 
appears in the LXX (e.g. in Job 27 10 fir] l^ci two. irapprjcrCar 
IvavTiov avrov). This confidence is the outcome of the Christian 
ikirk (for r>}s eA.7rt'8os goes with rrjy irappr)<r£av as well as with to 
Kavxnp-a); here as in 4 16 and io 19 - 35 it denotes the believing 
man's attitude to a God whom he knows to be trustworthy. 
The idea of t6 Kaux^p-a ttjs eXiuoos is exactly that of Ro 5 2 
(Kavx^p-tOa- «r lAiriSt t^s 86$rj<i tov dtov), and of a saying like 
Ps 5 12 (koX zv(ppa.v6r)T(D(Tav hrl trot TravTes 01 cAirt^oi'TCS cVt o"e). 

A16 in v. 7 goes most naturally with pj ai<\r|puVr)Te (v. 8 ), the 
thought of which recurs in v. 13 as the central thread. The 
alternative, to take it with |3XeiTeTe in v. 12 , which turns the whole 
quotation into a parenthesis, seems to blunt the direct force of 
the admonition; it makes the parenthesis far too long, and 
empties the second 816 of its meaning. |3Xe'TT€Tc is no more 
abrupt in v. 12 than in 12 25 ; it introduces a sharp, sudden 
warning, without any particle like ovv or 8c, and requires no pre- 
vious term like Sid. The quotation is introduced as in io 15 by 
"the holy Spirit" as the Speaker, a rabbinic idea of inspiration. 
The quotation itself is from Ps 95 7 " 11 which in A runs as follows : 

1 nrwXa in this sense is from Nu 14 s9 - 32 , a passage which the writer has 
in mind. 

III. 9.] A WARNING 45 

0-tjfj.epov iav rrjs <£(ovf}s avTou aKOvarjTe, 

/X7] crKXrjpvvrjTe Tas /capoias Vfjiwv <Ls ev tw TrapaTTLKpacrfJui) 

Kara nqv r)p.epav rov Treipaafxov ev rrj epy/xu}' 
ou eVeipacrav * ol 7raT€pes vp\Hiv, 

iSoKLfiacrav fie kol 18ov to. epya fiov. 
recraepaKOVTa err] Trpoa-(ji\6i(Ta rrj yevea ckciVt;, 2 

ko.l ci7rov" 3 del * 7r\ai>wvTa.L rrj Kap&ia, 

avTol 8e ovk eyvwcrav Tas ooous uou. 
ws wuocra ev rrj opyrj fxov, 

el el<re\ivcrovTai cts ttjv KaTairawiv fxov. 

In vv. 9 - 10 , though he knew (v. 17 ) the correct connexion of the 
LXX (cp. v. 17a ), he alters it here for his own purpose, taking 
TecnrapditoyTa Ittj with what precedes instead of with what follows, 
inserting Sid (which crept into the text of R in the psalm) before 
ir-pocroixfiio'ci for emphasis, and altering eSoKiji.affai' fxe into iv 8okl- 
uacna. 5 The LXX always renders the place-names " Meriba " 
and " Massa " by generalizing moral terms, here by irapaTn.Kpa<r/x6'i 
and 7r€ipao-/Ao's, the former only here in the LXX (Aquila. i Sam 
15 33 ; Theodotion, Prov 17 11 ). The displacement of Teo-crepdKorra 
£tt] was all the more feasible as elSov ra epya fiov meant for him 
the experience of God's punishing indignation. (Tecro-apdKCH'Ta is 
better attested than Teo-o-epaKovra. (Moulton, ii. 66) for the first 
century.) There is no hint that the writer was conscious of the 
rabbinic tradition, deduced from this psalm, that the period of 
messiah would last for forty years, still less that he had any idea 
of comparing this term with the period between the crucifixion 
and 70 a.d. What he really does is to manipulate the LXX text 
in order to bring out his idea that the entire forty years in the 
desert were a "day of temptation," 6 during which the People 
exasperated God. Hence (in v. 9 ) he transfers the " forty years " 
to elSok tci epya /xov, in order to emphasize the truth that the 
stay of the People in the desert was one long provocation of 
God ; for elSov ra epya jxov is not an aggravation of their offence 

1 N 04 adds fie (so T), which has crept (needlessly, for -rreipd^eiv may be 
used absolutely as in I Co IO 9 ) into the text of Hebrews through k c D c M vg 
pesh harkl boh arm Apollin. 

2 In some texts of Hebrews (p 18 « A B D* M 33. 424** vg Clem. 
Apollin.) this becomes (under the influence of the literal view of forty years?) 
TO.VTTJ (iKeivr) in C D c K L P syr sah boh arm eth Eus. Cyril, Chrys ). 

3 The Ionic form el7ra (B) has slipped into some texts of Hebrews (A D 
33. 206. 489. 128S. 1518. 1836). 

4 The LXX is stronger than the Hebrew ; it appears to translate not the 
CJ? of the MT, but dSj? (cp. Flashar in Zeits fur alt. VViss., 1912, 84-85). 

5 idoKifxacrav (/j.e) is read in the text of Hebrews, by assimilation, in n c D c 
K L vg syr arm eth Apollin. Lucifer, Ambr. Chrys. etc. i.e. EAOKI- 
MACIA was altered into EAOKIMACA. 

6 The Kara in Kara tv\v 7)fxtpav (v. 8 ) is temporal as in I 10 7 s7 , not "after the 
manner of" ("secundum," vg). 


(" though they felt what I could do for them "), but a reminder 
that all along God let them feel how he could punish them for 
their disobedience. Finally, their long-continued obstinacy led 
him to exclude them from the land of Rest. This " finally " 
does not mean that the divine oath of exclusion was pronounced 
at the end of the forty years in the desert, but that as the result 
of God's experience he gradually killed off (v. 17 ) all those who 
had left Egypt. This retribution was forced upon him by the 
conviction airol 81 ovk eyvwo-av Ta? oSou's /xov (i.e. would not learn 
my laws for life, cared not to take my road). 

The rabbinic interpretation of Ps 95 as messianic appears in the legend 
(T.B. Sanhedrim, 98a) of R. Joshua ben Levi and Elijah. When the rabbi 
was sent by Elijah to messiah at the gates of Rome, he asked, " Lord, when 
contest thou?" He answered, " To-day" Joshua returned to Elijah, who 
inquired of him : "What said He to thee?^' Joshua: " Peace be with thee, 
son of Levi." Elijah: " Thereby He has assured to thee and thy father a 
prospect of attaining the world to come." Joshua : "But He has deceived me, 
by telling me He would come to-day." Elijah: " Not so, what He meant 
was, To-day, if you will hear His voice." The severe view of the fate of the 
wilderness-generation also appears in Sanh. 1 \ob, where it is proved that the 
generation of the wilderness have no part in the world to come, from Nu 
14 s5 and also from Ps 95 (as L swore in my anger that they should not enter 
into my Rest). This was rabbi Akilia's stern reading of the text. But 
rabbinic opinion, as reflected in the Mishna (cp. W. Bacher, Agada der 
Tannailen 2 , i. 135 f. ), varied on the question of the fate assigned to the 
generation of Israelites during the forty years of wandering in the desert. 
While some authorities took Ps 95 11 strictly, as if the " rest'' meant the rest 
after death, and these Israelites were by the divine oath excluded from the 
world to come, others endeavoured to minimize the text ; God's oath only 
referred to the incredulous spies, they argued, or it was uttered in the haste 
of anger and recalled. In defence of the latter milder view Ps 50 5 was 
quoted, and Isa 35 10 . Our author takes the sterner view, reproduced later 
by Dante (Purgatorio, xviii. 133— 135), for example, who makes the Israelites 
an example of sloth ; " the folk for whom the sea opened were dead ere 
Jordan saw the heirs of promise." He never speaks of men " tempting God," 
apart from this quotation, and indeed, except in II 17 , God's TreipatTfids or 
probation of men is confined to the human life of Jesus. 

For 816 in v. 10 Clem. Alex. (Protrept. 9) reads oV 5. 
npocrwxOi^ii/ is a LXX term for the indignant loathing excited 
by some defiance of God's will, here by a discontented, critical 
attitude towards him. In v. 11 KaTdiraucris is used of Canaan as 
the promised land of settled peace, as only in Dt 12 9 (ov yap 
7/kcitc ... cts tt]v Ka.Ta.ira.v<Tiv) and I K 8 56 (evXoyrjTos Ku'pio? 
o"r]fj.epov, os eSw/cev KaTairavcriv tw A.a<5 aurov). The mystical sense 
is developed in 4 3f -. 

The application (vv. 12f -) opens with pXiireTe (for the classical 
opare) jjlt] . . . lorai (as in Col 2 8 (/^A-eVere [xrj . . . cotou), the 
reason for the future being probably " because the verb eifd has 
no aorist, which is the tense required," Field, Notes on Transla- 
tion of N.T., p. 38) iv tici u(iic — the same concern for individuals 

III. 12-14.] A WARNING 47 

as in 4 11 io 25 12 15 — icapSia aTucrrias (genitive of quality — a 
Semitism here). 'Airio-Tia must mean more than "incredulity"; 
the assonance with a-rroa-TrjiaL was all the more apt as dwia-Tia 
denoted the unbelief which issues in action, c^ ™ d-n-offTTJi'ai — the 
idea as in Ezk 20 8 koX aTrea-Trjaav air ifxov, kou ovk rjdeXrjaav 
elaaKovcraL p.ov, though the preposition diro was not needed, as may 
be seen, e.g., in Wis 3 10 (01 . . . rov KvpCov diroo-TavTes). Our 
author is fond of this construction, the infinitive with a preposition. 
" The living God " suggests what they lose by their apostasy, 
and what they bring upon themselves by way of retribution 
(io 31 ), especially the latter (cp. 4 12 ). There is no real distinction 
between 6eov favros and rov 6eov £wvto9, for the article could be 
dropped, as in the case of 0e6s Trarrjp and Kvptos 'Irjo-ovs, once the 
expression became stamped and current. 

In V. 13 irapaKaXeiTe . . . Ka9' eKdarne Tjfxe'pai' (cp. Test. Levi Q 8 
y)v Kad' £ko.o-t7]v rj/xepav o-w(Ti£u)v //.e) emphasizes the keen, constant 
care of the community for its members, which is one feature of 
the epistle. In dxpis ou (elsewhere in NT with aorist or future), 
which is not a common phrase among Attic historians and 
orators, dxpis is a Hellenistic form of dxpi (p 13 M) used sometimes 
when a vowel followed. Irjp.cpoi' is " God's instant men call 
years" (Browning), and the paronomasia in KaXeiTai 1 . . . irapa- 
KaXeiTe led the writer to prefer KaXelrai to a term like Krjpvcro-eTai. 
The period (see 4 7 ) is that during which God's call and oppor- 
tunity still hold out, and the same idea is expressed in iv tw 
XeyeCT0ai I^p-epoc ktX. (v. 15 ). e| up.wi' is sufficiently emphatic as it 
stands, without being shifted forward before tis (B D K L d e etc. 
harkl Theodt. Dam.) in order to contrast ujieis with ol Trcu-epes 
ufAu^ (v. 9 ). As for t| dp.apTia, it is the sin of apostasy (1 2 4 ), which 
like all sin deceives men (Ro 7 11 ), in this case by persuading them 
that they will be better off if they allow themselves to abandon the 
exacting demands of God. The responsibility of their position is 
expressed in Iva pr\ ctkXtipuvGtj, a passive with a middle meaning ; 
men can harden themselves or let lower considerations harden 
them against the call of God. As Clement of Alexandria 

(Protrept. ix.) explains : opare rrjv dirciXiqv' Spare -rqv TrpoTpoirrjV' 
opdre rrjv ripnqv. ti 8// ovv Ztl tyjv X < *P LV € ^ s opyrjv /xeTaXXacrcro/xei' . . . ; 
fxeydkr] ydp tt}s €7rayy€Xi'as avrov rj X^P ts i " * av o-rjfxepov r>/s c^wv^s 
avrov a.Kova-Q>fj.ev " * to Se (Trjp.epov t?)s (pwvrjs olItov au^erat t?)v r]p.ipav, 
eoV dv 7) drjfxepov oVo/xa^rai. 

In v. 14 p.eToxoi tou XpiCTToO (which is not an equivalent for the 
Pauline ev Xpicrrw, but rather means to have a personal interest 
in him) answers to p.eToxoi KXrjo-ews e-n-oupaviou in v. 1 and to 
p.eToxous ■nveu'p.crros dyiou in 6 4 ; yeyovamtv betrays the predilection 
of the writer for yiyova rather than its equivalent elvai. 'EdVircp 
1 The common confusion between at and et led to the variant /caXetre (A C). 


an intensive particle (for lav, V.* 5 ) ttjv a.pyr\v ttJs UTrooTdaews 

(genitive of apposition) — i.e. " our initial confidence " (the idea 
of io 32 ) — KaTderxufief (echoing v. 6 *). The misinterpretation of 
oirooTciacus as (Christ's) "substance" 1 led to the addition of 
auToO (A 588. 623. 1827. 1912 vg). But wToo-rao-is here as in 
it 1 denotes a firm, confident conviction or resolute hope (in 
LXX, e.g., Ru I 12 ecrnv fioi twoo-Toum rov ycv^^vai /xc avSpi, 
rendering mpn, which is translated by e^iris in Pr n 7 ), with the 
associations of steadfast patience under trying discouragements. 
This psychological meaning was already current (cp. 2 Co 9 4 
fjLt] . . . Ka.Tcu<T)(yv9C)fJLev rjfxeis iv rfj viro(TTa<T€i ravTrj), alongside 
of the physical or metaphysical. What a man bases himself on, 
as he confronts the future, is his woo-rao-is, which here in sound 
and even (by contrast) in thought answers to a.tro<TTr}va.i. 

It is possible to regard v. u as a parenthesis, and connect 
ec tw Xe'yeo-Gai (v. 15 ) closely with irapaKaXeiTe or Iva fi^j . . . 
dpap-rias (v. 13 ), but this is less natural ; iv tw Aeyccr&u (" while it 
is said," as in Ps 42* iv t<3 \iyco-6ai) connects easily and aptly 
with /cardo-xw/Acv, and vv. 14 - 15 thus carry on positively the thought 
of v. 13 , viz. that the writer and his readers are still within the 
sound of God's call to his oikos to be 77-10-1-05. 

The pointed questions which now follow (vv. 16 ' 18 ) are a 
favourite device of the diatribe style. napamitpau'cii' (Hesych 
vapopyi^iv) 2 in v. 16 seems to have been coined by the LXX 
to express " rebellious " with a further sense of provoking or 

angering God ; e.g. Dt 31 2 " irapaTriKpaivovTVi rjre to. 7rp6s tov 6eov 
(translating H"ID), and Dt 32 16 iv (38e\vyp.aa-iv avrwv irapeTTLKpavdv 
p.e (translating Dya). The sense of " disobey " recurs occasionally 
in the LXX psalter (e.g. 104 28 , 106 11 ); indeed the term involves 
a disobedience which stirs up the divine anger against rebels, 
the flagrant disobedience (cp. -rrapafSaiveiv for mo in Dt i 43 , 
Nu 27 14 ) which rouses exasperation in God. 'A\\', one rhetorical 
question being answered by another (as Lk 17 8 ), logically 
presupposes iWs, but Ttves must be read in the previous question. 
By writing irdfTes the writer does not stop to allow for the faith- 
ful minority, as Paul does(i Co io 7f * rives outw). In the grave 
conclusion (v. 19 ) 81' dTrioriav (from v. 12 ) is thrown to the end for 
the sake of emphasis. 

But, the author continues (4 lf> ), the promised rest is still 
available; it is open to faith, though only to faith ( 1_8 ). No 
matter how certainly all has been done upon God's part ( 3 " 5 ), 
and no matter how sure some human beings are to share his 

1 Another early error was to regard it as " our substance," so that i) apxv 
7-775 vwoaTaaeus meant faith as "the beginning of our true nature" (a view 
already current in Chrysostoni). 

2 In Dt 32 16 it is parallel to irapo^vvew ; cp. Flashar's discussion in Zeit- 
schrift fur alt. fVtss., 1912, 185 f. It does not always require an object (God). 


Rest (v. 6 ), it does not follow that we shall, unless we take warning 
by this failure of our fathers in the past and have faith in God. 
Such is the urgent general idea of this paragraph. But the 
argument is compressed ; the writer complicates it by defining 
the divine Rest as the sabbath-rest of eternity, and also by 
introducing an allusion to Joshua. That is, he (a) explains 
God's /<aTU7rawis in Ps 95 by the o-a/3/3aTio>io5 of Gn 2 2 , and 
then (b) draws an inference from the fact that the psalm-promise 
is long subsequent to the announcement of the aafifiaTio-fios. 
He assumes that there is only one Rest mentioned, the /caTdVavo-is 
into which God entered when he finished the work of creation, 
to which oi 7raT€pes ifj.wv were called under Moses, and to which 
Christians are now called. They must never lose faith in it, 
whatever be appearances to the contrary. 

1 Well then, as the promise of entrance into his Rest is still left to us, let 
us be afraid of anyone being judged to have missed it. 2 For ( koX yap = etenim ) 
we have had the good news as well as they (e/ce?i'ot = 3 8 " 19 ) ; only, the message 
they heard was of no use to them, because it did not meet with faith in the 
hearers. s For we do " enter the Rest " by our faith : according to his word, 
" As /swore in my anger, 
they shall never enter my Rest " — 
although "his works " were all over by the foundation of the it orld. * For he 
says somewhere about the seventh (sc. rjntpas) day : "And God rested from all 
his works on the seventh day." 5 And again in this (iv tovt^i, sc. t6tt^) 
passage, "they shall never enter my Rest." B Since then it is reserved 
(diroXei-rreTai, a variant for KaraXenr, v. 1 ) for some "to enter it," and since 
those who formerly got the good news failed to ' ' enter " owing to their disobedi- 
ence? ''he again fixes a day ; " today " — as he says in " David" after so long 
an interval, and as has been already quoted: 

" Today, when you hear his voice, 
harden not your hearts." 
8 Thus if Joshua had given them Rest, God would not speak later about another 
day. There is a sabbath- Nest, then, reserved (airoXti-rreTai, as in 6 ) still for 
the People of God {for once "a man enters his {avrov, i.e. God's) rest," he 
" rests from work" just as God did). 

'E-n-ayycXia (v. 1 ) is not common in the LXX, though it mis- 
translates map in Ps 56 s , and is occasionally the term for a 

human promise. In the Prayer of Manasseh ( 6 ) it is the divine 
promise (to IAcos rr)s cVayyeAtas <rov), and recurs in the plural, 
of the divine promises, in Test. Jos. 20 1 (6 Oebs 7roirjaeL tt)v 

ii<$LKr](Tiv ifxCjv /cat tVa^ei v//as eis Tas £7rayye-\.i'as twv irarepwv 
Vfiwv) and Ps. Sol I2 8 (00-101 KrpCov KX-qporofX-qaatev eVuyycAi'as 

xvpiov — the first occurrence of this phrase *A. iw., cp. below on 
6 12 ). KaTaXei-n-OfieVTjs eiravyeXias (+1-775 D* 255, from 6 15 - 17 n 9 ) 
is a genitive absolute. 'ETrayyeXtas eiaeXOeli^like opp-r) . . . vfipicrai 
in Ac 14 5 ) ktX. : the basis of the appeal is (a) that the divine 
promise of Rest has been neither fulfilled nor withdrawn (still to 
" cr-qfiepov " /caXetTat) ; and (b) that the punishment which befalls 
1 'A7rei0eiae, altered into airia-riav by K* vg sah boh arm Cyr. 


others is a warning to ourselves (cp. Philo, ad Gaium, i : ai yap 

kreptiiv TLfX-wpcaL /JeArioDou tous 7roAAoi;s, <po(3u) tov /at) Trapair\r)0~ia 

■n-aOdv). By a well-known literary device pj wotc, like p.rj in 
12 15 , takes a present (8okjj), instead of the more usual aorist, 
subjunctive. Aoktj means "judged" or "adjudged," as in 
Josephus, Ant. viii. 32, ko.v dWorpLov 8oKr). This is common in 
the LXX, e.g. in Pr 17 28 ivebv 84 tis ecurrov -n-oir/o-as So£ei cppoVi/xo? 
elvai (where So£ei is paralleled by Aoyicr#r/o-eTai), 27 14 (Ka.Tapwp.evov 
ov8kv 8ia.<pepeiv 80'fei) ; indeed it is an ordinary Attic use which 
goes back to Plato (e.g. Phaedo, 113 D, of the souls in the under- 
world, 01 pXv av Sd£cocri p.£o~(D<; (3e/3i<j)Kevcu) and Demosthenes 
(629. 17, ol 8e8oyp.£voL av8po(f>6voi = the convicted murderers). 
The searching scrutiny which passes this verdict upon lack of 
faith is the work of the divine Logos (in v. 12 ). 

In v. 2 euriyyeWfAeVoi is remarkable. Our author, who never 
uses €vayy£\i.ov (preferring eVayycAia here as an equivalent), 
employs the passive of cuayyeAi'^eu' l (as in v. 6 ) in the broad sense 
of " having good news brought to one." The passive occurs in 
LXX of 2 S 18 31 (euayyeAicr^ro) 6 /cu'pios p\ov 6 /?acnAeus) and in 
Mt 1 1 6 (7ttw^o1 €uayyeAi£ovrai). The /cai after KaOdirep emphasizes 
as usual the idea of correspondence. The reason for the failure 
of the past generation was that they merely heard what God 
said, and did not believe him ; 6 \6yos ttj? &kotjs (cikotjs, passive 
= " sermo auditus," vg), which is another (see 3 12 ) instance of the 
Semitic genitive of quality, is defined as jul-i^ (causal particle as 
in II 27 /at) <£o/?ti0€i's) o , uyic€K(e)pa(o-)p.ei'os ttj morei tois dKouaaaic, 
since it did not get blended with faith in (the case of) those who 
heard it. Or rrj ttio-t(.i may be an instrumental dative : " since it 
did not enter vitally into the hearers by means of the faith which 
it normally awakens in men." The fault lies, as in the parable 
of the Sower, not with the message but with the hearers. The 
phrase Aoyos . . . o-vy KtKpa.a-p.lvo>; may be illustrated from Men- 
ander (Stob. Serm. 42, p. 302), rrjv tov Xoyov p.ev 8vvap.iv ovk 
iiri<pdovov 7)6(.l 8e xpr)o~Toj o~vyKeKpap.evr]v lx etv > an0 - Plutarch, non 
posse suauiter vivi secundum Epicurum, 1101, ySe'Ariov yap Ivvirdp- 
X €tv Tt koX o~vyKi.Kpao-dat ttj Trepl 6eu>v 86£r] kolvov cuSous ko.1 <pofiov 
7ru^os ktA. The use of Aoyos with such verbs is illustrated by 
Plutarch, Fit. C/eom. 2 (6 8k Stohkos Aoyos . . . /3d0ei Se ko.1 
Trpdiii Kepavvvp.ivo'i yfda. p.d\io~Ta ets to oiKtlov ayaBbv €7rtSiSu)0"iv). 
Kpacris occurs in Philo's definition of oSiAia (Quaest. in Gen. 2 18 ) 
as consisting [ovk] iv tw xP eL( *>& €l p-aXXov rj Kpdaet. ko.1 crvp.<p<iivia 
fitfiaio) rwv rj9u)v, and cnry/cc/cpuo-flai in his description of the 
union of spirit and blood in the human body (Quaest. in 

Gen. 9 4 TTV(.vp.a . . . ip.<pepecr6ai kou crvy KeKpaa 6 ai a"p.ari). 

1 An almost contemporary instance (euayye\l?oi>Ti rk rrjs veiKrjs avrov nal 
wpoKoirrjs) of the active verb is cited by Mitteis-Wilcken, i. 2. 29. 

IV. 3, 4.] THE REST OF GOD 5 I 

The original reading <TvyKeK(e)pa(<r)fiivos (k 114 vt pesh Lucif.) was soon 
assimilated (after tuelvovs) into the accusative -oi»s (p 13 A BCDKL M P vg 
boh syr hkl etc. Chrys. Theod.-Mops. Aug.), and this led to the alteration of 
rots &Kov<ra<riv into rwv 6.kov<to.vtu)v (D* 104. 1611. 2005 d syr llklm e Lucif.), 
or roh aKovadelaiv (1912 vg Theod.-Mops. ), or tols aKovavtnv (1891). The 
absence of any allusion elsewhere to the faithful minority (Caleb, Joshua) 
tells decisively against uvyKeKpaaiiivovs ("since they did not mix with the 
believing hearers J ; for the writer (see above) never takes them into account, 
and, to make any sense, this reading implies them. How could the majority 
be blamed for not associating with believing hearers when ex hypothesi there 
were none such ? 

The writer now (vv. 3-10 ) lays emphasis upon the reality of 
the Rest. " We have had this good news too as well as they," 
for (yap) we believers do enter into God's Rest ; it is prepared 
and open, it has been ready ever since the world began — apa 
d-rfoXeiTreTai CTaj3|3aTi.o-u6s tw Xaw tou 0eou. Eto-epxofieSa is the 
emphatic word in v. 3 : " we do (we are sure to) enter," the futuristic 
present (" ingrediemur," vg). When God excluded that unbe- 
lieving generation from his Rest, he was already himself in his 
Rest. The Kcu-di-jrauo-is was already in existence ; the reason 
why these men did not gain entrance was their own unbelief, not 
any failure on God's part to have the Rest ready. Long ago it 
had been brought into being (this is the force of kcutoi in v. 3 ), 
for what prevents it from being realized is not that any tpya. of 
God require still to be done. KaTdVawis is the sequel to epya. 
The creative epya leading up to this KaTdVawis have been com- 
pleted centuries ago ; God enjoys his KaTdVauo-is, and if his 
People do not, the fault lies with themselves, with man's disbelief. 

Here, as in Ro 3 s8 , there is a choice of reading between odv (» A C M 
1908 boh) and yap (p ]3 B D K L P * 6. 33 lat syr hkl eth Chrys. Lucif. 
etc.) ; the colourless 84 (syrP esh arm) may be neglected. The context is de- 
cisive in favour of yap. Probably the misinterpretation which produced otv 
led to the change of elaepx^fJ-eda into elcrepxv/u.eda * (A C 33. 69* : future in 
vg sah boh Lucif.). The insertion of r-qv (the first) may be due to the same 
interpretation, but not necessarily; p 13 B D* om., but B omits the article 
sometimes without cause (e.g. 7 15 ). The omission of el (p 13 D* 2. 330. 440. 
623. 642. 1288. 1319. 1912) was due to the following el in elcreXevaovTai. 

Kcutoi (with gen. absol., as OP. 89s 26 ) is equivalent here to 
/caiTotye for which it is a v. I. in Ac 17 27 (A E, with ptc). " Katroi, 
ut antiquiores KcuVep, passim cum participio iungunt scriptores 
aetatis hellenisticae " (Herwerden, Appendix Lexici Graea, 249). 
KaTaf3o\rj is not a LXX term, but appears in Ep. Aristeas, 1 29 
and 2 Mac 2 29 (t^s oA?;s KaraySoX^s = the entire edifice); in the 
NT always, except He n 11 , in the phrase cbrd or -n-po KaTa/3oX^s 


The writer then (v. 4 ) quotes Gn 2 2 , inserting 6 0eos iv (exactly 
as Philo had done, de poster. Caini, 18), as a proof that the Kcrni- 
1 A similar error of A C in 6 J . 


irauffts had originated immediately after the six days of creation. 
In €ipr]K€ ttou the irou is another literary mannerism (as in Philo); 
instead of quoting definitely he makes a vague allusion (cp. 2 6 ). 
The psalm-threat is then (v. 5 ) combined with it, and (v. 6 ) the 
deduction drawn, that the threat (v. 7 ) implies a promise (though 
not as if v. 1 meant, " lest anyone imagine he has come too late 
for it" — an interpretation as old as Schottgen, and still advo- 
cated, e.g., by Dods). 

The title of the 92nd psalm, " for the sabbath-day," was discussed 
about the middle of the 2nd century by R. Jehuda and R. Nehemia ; the 
former interpreted it to mean the great Day of the world to come, which 
was to be one perfect sabbath, but R. Nehemia's rabbinical tradition pre- 
ferred to make it the seventh day of creation on which God rested (see W. 
Bacher's Agada der Tannaitetr, i. pp. 328-329). The author of the Epistle 
of Barnabas (15) sees the fulfilment of Gn 2 2 in the millennium : "he rested 
on the seventh day" means that "when his Son arrives he will destroy the 
time of the lawless one, and condemn the impious, and alter sun and moon 
and stars ; then he will really rest on the seventh day," and Christians cannot 
enjoy their rest till then. Our author's line is different — different even from 
the Jewish interpretation in the Vita Adae et Evae (li. 1), which makes the 
seventh day symbolize " the resurrection and the rest of the age to come ; on 
the seventh day the Lord rested from all his works. " 

In v. 7 fxcTa Too-ouTor \p6vov, like fic-rct TauTa (v. 8 ), denotes the 
interval of centuries between the desert and the psalm of David, 
for ef AaueiS means "in the psalter" (like Iv 'HAta, Ro n 2 ) ; the 
95th psalm is headed alvos w8r}s ra AavetS in the Greek bible, 
but the writer throughout (3 7f ) treats it as a direct, divine word. 
npoeipr)Ttu (the author alluding to his previous quotation) is the 
original text (p 13 A C D* P 6. 33. 1611. 1908. 2004. 2005 lat 
syr Chrys. Cyr. Lucif.) ; irpoeipiqKzv (B 256. 263. 436. 442. 999. 
1739. 1837 arm sah boh Orig.) suggests that God or David 
spoke these words before the oath (v. 7 comes before v. 11 !), while 
tlprjTai (D c K L eth etc. Theophyl.) is simply a formula of 
quotation. From the combination of Ps 95 7 - 8 with Ps 95 11 and 
Gn 2 2 (vv. 3 " 7 ) the practical inference is now drawn (v. 8f -). Like 
Sirach (46** 2 Kparaios iv 7roA.ep.01s 'I^amis Nav?7 . . . os iyevero 
Kara to ovop.a avrov p.eyas iir\ ocoTripitt e/cAeKTaii' avrov), Philo (de 
mutatione notmnum, 21, 'I??crov? 8k [ep/r^veJerai] crwrrjpia KvpCov, 
€$€(!)<; ovofxa tt}? dpio-His) had commented on the religious signifi- 
cance of the name Joshua; but our author ignores this, and 
even uses the name 'It/o-ous freely, since 'I^o-oCs is never applied 
by him to Christ before the incarnation (Aquila naturally avoids 
"I^o-oDs and prefers 'Iwcrova). The author of Ep. Barnabas plays 
on the fact that "Joshua" and "Jesus" are the same names: 

eA7rt'o"aT€ Ittl tov iv (rapKi fieWovTa (fjavepovadai Vjxiv 'lrjaovv (6 9 ), 
i.e. not on the " Jesus " who led Israel into the land of rest, but 
on the true, divine "Joshua." Such, he declares, is the inner 

IV. 8-10.] THE REST OF GOD 53 

meaning of Is 28 16 (os iXiriaei iir avrov ^crerai cis tov aiaJia). 
But the author of II/>ds 'E/fyaidus takes his own line, starting from 
the transitive use of KaTcnrnueii' (Jos I 13 Kvpios 6 0€os v/xwv ko.t£- 
■n-avcrtv vuas kou eStoKev ttjv yr]v ravr-qv, etc.) ; not that he 
reads subtle meanings into the transitive and intransitive usages 
of Ka.Taira.veiv, like Philo. Nor does he philosophize upon the 
relevance of Ka-raTravo-is to God. Philo, in De Cherubim (26), 
explains why Moses calls the sabbath {jkp pnqveviTai 8' di'U7ravo-is) 
the "sabbath of God" in Ex 20 10 etc.; the only thing which 
really rests is God — "rest (di/a7raiAai/) meaning not inactivity 
in good (a-n-pa^iav KaAwv) — for the cause of all things which is 
active by nature never ceases doing what is best, but — an energy 
devoid of laboriousness, devoid of suffering, and moving with 
absolute ease." The movement and changes of creation point 
to labour, but "what is free from weakness, even though it 
moves all things, will never cease to rest : ware oiKtioTOTaTov 
fjiovw 0e<2 to avairavzo-Oai." So in De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, 8, 
tov Toaovrov Koa/xov avev ttoVcdv 7rdAcu fikv €ipyd£«TO, vvvl oe kou 
eio-aci <rwcYG>V ovSeVoTe Arjyct [cp. He I 3 cpepwv re ra 7rdi'Ta], ^ca! 

yap to a.Kdp.aTov dp/AoStwrarov. All such speculations are remote 
from our author. He simply assumes (a) that God's promise of 
KaTa7ravcris is spiritual ; it was not fulfilled, it was never meant 
to be fulfilled, in the peaceful settlement of the Hebrew clans 
in Canaan ; (b) as a corollary of this, he assumes that it is 

In v. 9 apa, as in 12 8 , Lk n 48 , Ac n 18 , Ro 10 17 , is thrown to 
the beginning by an unclassical turn ("miisste dem gebildeten 
Hellenen hochgradig anstossig erscheinen," Radermacher, 20). 
laPPctTiCTfios, apparently x a word coined by the writer, is a Sem- 
itic-Greek compound. The use of o-a/8/3aTio-/i.os for KaTairaucris is 
then (v. 10 ) justified in language to which the closest parallel is 
Apoc 14 13 . "Rest" throughout all this passage — and the writer 
never refers to it again — is the blissful existence of God's faithful 
in the next world. As a contemporary apocalyptist put it, in 
4 Es 8 52 : "for you paradise is opened, the tree of life planted, 
the future age prepared, abundance made ready, a City built, a 
Rest appointed " (naTeo-raOr] ?). In dir6 twc lhi(t)V, as in Bid too 
loi'ou ai'u.aTos (13 12 ), tSios is slightly emphatic owing to the context; 
it is not quite equivalent to the possessive pronoun. 

When Maximus of Tyre speaks of life as a long, arduous path to the goal 
of bliss and perfection, he describes in semi-mystical language how tired 
souls, longing for the land to which this straight and narrow and little- 
frequented way leads, at length reach it and "rest from their labour" 
(Dissert, xxiii.). 

1 The only classical instance is uncertain ; Bernadakis suspects it in the 
text of Plutarch, de supersiit. 166 A. 


The lesson thus drawn from the reading of the OT passages 
is pressed home (vv. 11-13 ) with a skilful blend of encouragement 
and warning. 

11 Let us be eager then to "enter that Rest," in case anyone falls into the 
same sort of disobedience. 12 For the Logos of God is a living thing, active 
and more cutting than any sword with double edge, penetrating to the very 
division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow — scrutinizing the very thoughts 
and conceptions of the heart. 13 And no created thing is hidden from him ; 
all things lie open and exposed before the eyes of him with whom we have to 
reckon (6 \6yos). 

In v. 11 the position of tis, as, e.g., in Lk i8 18 , is due to "the 
tendency which is to be noted early in Greek as well as in cognate 
languages, to bring unemphasized (enclitic) pronouns as near to 
the beginning of the sentence as possible" (Blass, § 473. 1). 

For lUTTTCU' iv, Cp. Epict. Hi. 2 2. 48, 7TOT6 fytoiv elSiv (JL€ TtS . . . 

iv cKKXtVet TrepiiTLTrTovTa. This Hellenistic equivalent for iriirreiv 
cts goes back to earlier usage, e.g. Eurip. Here. 1091, 1092, 
iv kXvSlovi kcu <ppevwv Tapd.yp.arL 7re7rTa>Ka. Seti'aJ. In Hellenistic 
Greek vTr68eiyp,a came to have the sense of 7rapa&eiy/j.a, and is 
used here loosely for " kind " or " sort " ; take care of falling into 
disobedience like that of which these Traripes vp.£>v yield such a 
tragic example. The writer, with his fondness for periphrases of 
this kind, writes iv tw auTw u-rroSeiyfiaTi tt]? aimGeias, where iv rfj 
airfj airuOua would have served. In passing away from the text 
about Rest, he drops this last warning reference to the classLal 
example of direiQua in the far past of the People. 

The connexion of thought in vv. llf - is suggested by what has 
been already hinted in v. 1 , where the writer pled for anxiety, /i.77 
7Tore So/07 tis i$ vp,wv vo-reprjKivai. He repeats iva p.7] . . . tis 
. . . irlarj, and enlarges upon what lies behind the term Sokjj. 
Then, after the passage on the relentless scrutiny of the divine 
Logos, he effects a transition to the direct thought of God (v. 13 ), 
with which the paragraph closes. ZirouSdawfiei' — we have to put 
heart and soul into our religion, for we are in touch with a God 
whom nothing escapes ; l&v ydp ktX. (v. 12 ). The term £u>v echoes 
0e6s £o>v in 3 12 (men do not disobey God with impunity), just as 
KapSi'as echoes /capSta irovrjpa airicrTias. God is swift to mark any 
departure from his will in human thought — the thought that 
issues in action. 

The personifying of the divine Xoyos, in a passage which 
described God in action, had already been attempted. In Wis 
18 15 , for example, the plagues of Egypt are described as the effect 
of God's Aoyos coming into play : 6 iravToSvvap.o'i crov Adyos a7r' 
ovpavwv . . . £t(pos 6£v ttjv avviroKpLTuV iirLTay-qv crov (pepwv. In 

Wis i 6 , again, the (ptXdvdpwn-ov irvevp.a a-ofpia, which cannot 
tolerate blasphemy, reacts against it : on rdv veeppwv avrov (the 
blasphemer) p.dprv<i 6 6e6%, kcu tt}s /capStas avrov £7rto-/co7ros giAt/^s, 


so that no muttering of rebellion is unmarked. Here the writer 
poetically personifies the revelation of God for a moment. 'O 
Adyos tou 6eov is God speaking, and speaking in words which 
are charged with doom and promise (3 7f *)- The revelation, how- 
ever, is broader than the scripture ; it includes the revelation of 
God's purpose in Jesus (i lf> ). The free application of 6 Adyos 
(tov deov) in primitive Christianity is seen in i P i 23f -, Ja i 18f -, 
quite apart from the specific application of the term to the 
person of Christ (Jn i 1 " 18 ). Here it denotes the Christian gospel 
declared authoritatively by men like the writer, an inspired 
message which carries on the OT revelation of God's promises 
and threats, and which is vitally effective. No dead letter, this 
Adyos ! The rhetorical outburst in vv. 12f - is a preacher's equiva- 
lent for the common idea that the sense of God's all-seeing 
scrutiny should deter men from evil-doing, as, e.g., in Plautus 
(Captivi, ii. 2. 63, "est profecto deu', qui quae nos gerimus 
auditque et uidet "). This had been deepened by ethical writers 
like Seneca (Ep. lxxxiii. 1, "nihil deo clusum est, interest animis 
nostris et cogitationibus mediis intervenit "), Epictetus (ii. 14. 11, 
ovk tern XaOelv avrbv ov /xovov ttolovvto. dAA ov8k oiavoovp,€vov 77 
ii'dv/xovfxevov), and the author of the Epistle of Arts teas (132-133 : 
Moses teaches otl p.dvos 6 #€o's io-Ti . . . kcu ov8kv avrov Aav^avci 
twv iirl yrj<; yivop-cvaov vif av6pw7rwv Kpu<£«os . . . kolv ivvorjOfj tis 
kolkiolv imreXeiVf ovk av XaOoi, fir/ on /cat 7rpa£as, and 210: the 
characteristic note of piety is to 8ia\a[A.ftaveiv on iravTa Biairavrbs 6 
#eos ivepyei kcu yivcocTKei, ko.1 ovdzv av X6.601 clSlkov Troikas rj kolkov 
epya.crap.evos ai'#pa)7ros), as well as by apocalyptists like the author 
of Baruch (83 s : He will assuredly examine the secret thoughts 
and that which is laid up in the secret chambers of all the 
members of man). But our author has one particular affinity. 
Take Philo's interpretation of SieiAev avra pe'cra in Gn 15 10 . 
Scripture means, he explains (quis rer. div. haeres, 26) that it 
was God who divided them, to) ropiei tu crup.7ravTcuv kavTov Aoyw, 
os eis tyjv 6£vTaTr]v aKovrjd els a.K/jir]v Siaipwv otiSeVoTe A^yei. to. yap 
alo-Orjra. travra irrtihav P-*XP l T ^ v ciTopwv Kai Aeyop.eVcuv afxepwv 
$ie£e\8r], 7raAiv a.Trb tovt<dv to. Adya) dewprjTa. eis ap.v6r)TOV$ Kal 
airepiypa<pov<i pvoipas ap^eTai Siaipeiv ovtos 6 He returns 

(in 48) to this analytic function of the Logos in God and man, 
and in De mutatione nominum (18) speaks of y)Kovr\p.ivov koI 6£vv 
Adyov, ko.1 avatprjTelv 2/cao-ra i/cavdv. Still, the Logos is 
Top.evs as the principle of differentiation in the universe, rather 
than as an ethical force ; and when Philo connects the latter with 
6 Adyos, as he does in quod deter, pot. 29, Cherub. 9, etc., 6 Adyos 
is the human faculty of reason. Obviously, our author is using 
Philonic language rather than Philonic ideas. 

'E^epyiis (for which B, by another blunder, has iva.pyrjs = 


evidens) is not a LXX term, but denotes in Greek vital activity 
(cp. Schol. on Soph. Oed. Tyr. 45, £uio-as avrl t'vcpyco-Tepas). 
Neither is ropwrepos a LXX term ; the comparison of 6 Aoyos to 
a sword arose through the resemblance between the tongue and 
a "dagger," though fid^aipa had by this time come to mean a 
sword of any size, whether long (pop<paia) or short. 1 The com- 
parative is followed (cp. Lk 16 8 ) by vnip, as elsewhere by trapa, 
and the "cutting" power of 6 Ao'yos extends or penetrates to the 
innermost recesses of human nature — axpi pepicrpou <J>uxtjs icai 
■jrveu'paTos, 2 dpfj.a>y re kcu pueXoic (the conj. /j.t\wv = limbs is neat 
but superfluous, for pve\Q)v was in the text known to Clem. 
Alex, quis dives, 41). D K here (as in 1 i 32 ) insert te before the 
first Kat, but there is no idea of distinguishing the psychical and 
the physical spheres ; dpp,wv . . .\wv is merely a metaphorical 
equivalent for ^'x^s K al Trvtvp-aTos. Mepio-p.os (only in LXX in 
Jb 11 23 , 2 Es 6 18 ) means here "division," not "distribution" (2*) ; 
the subtlest relations of human personality, the very border-line 
between the i/'ux 7 ? an ^ the irvevfia, all this is open to 6 Aoyos. The 
metaphorical use of\wv in this sense is as old as Euripides, 
who speaks of p.r/ irpos aKpov\6v t/'t'X'?? {Hippolytus, 255). 

According to Philo (De Cherubim, 8. 9), the flaming sword of Gn 3 24 is a 
symbol either of the sun, as the swiftest of existences (circling the whole 
world in a single day), or of reason, d^vKiv-qroraTov yap Kai 6ipjj.ov Xdyos kclI 
/xdXicrra 6 tou alriov. Learn from the fiery sword, o my soul, he adds, 
to note the presence and power of this divine Reason, 8s ovd^wore X^yei 
Kivovfxevos crwovSrj iraffTj irpbs a'ipecnv fikv tQiv kclKQiv, (piyrjv 5Z tQiv ivavrluv. 
But there is a still better parallel to the thought in Lucian's account of the 
impression made by the address (6 Xoyos) of a philosopher : oil yap ei; dTriiroXrjs 
ovo' ujs ihrvxev i]fi.uii> 6 Xdyos nad'acero, fiadela 5k Kai tcaipios 7) TrXrjyri iyivero, 
Kai fxdXa evaroxus ive\6els 6 Xdyos aiir-qv, ei oZ6v re eiirelv, d^Ko^pe rrjv ^vxv v 
[Nify. 35). Only, Lucian proceeds to compare the soul of a cultured person 
to a target at which the words of the wise are aimed. Similarly, in pseudo- 
Phocylides, 124: 6-rrXov roi Xdyos dvSpl TOfxdrrepov iari. <nb~-qpov, and Od. Sol. 
12 5 : for the swiftness of the Word is inexpressible, and like its expression is 
its swiftness and force, and its course knows no limit. 

The pepicrpou . . . pueXwc passage is " a mere rhetorical 
accumulation of terms to describe the whole mental nature of 
man" (A. B. Davidson); the climax is /mpoYa, for what underlies 
human failure is KapSla -irov-qpa d7rio-rias (3 12 ), and the writei's 
warning all along has been against hardening the heart, i.e. 
obdurate disobedience. Hence the point of Kai Kpinxos ktA. 
Kpn-iKo's is another of his terms which are classical, not religious ; 
it is used by Aristotle (Eth. A T ik. vi. 10) of rj o-vreo-is, the in- 
telligence of man being Kpn-i*?; in the sense that it discerns. If 

: The description was familiar to readers of the LXX, e.g. Pr 5 4 rjKovt)/juti>ov 
HaXXov /iaxtttpas oiardfiov. 

2 The subtlety of thought led afterwards to the change of irvajfj-aros into 
adifiaros (2. 38. 257. 547. 1245). 

IV. 12, 13.] THE SCRUTINY OF GOD 57 

there is any distinction between ivQvix^vew (ivOvprjo-cws C* D* W 
vt Lucifer) and iwoiwv, it is between impulses and reflections, 
but contemporary usage hardly distinguished them ; indeed 
Iwoia could mean "purpose" as well as "conception." The two 
words are another alliterative phrase for "thought and con- 
ception," Zwoia, unlike evOvp.r}cri<;, being a LXX term. 

In v. 13 tea! ouk eCTTik KTicris d<}>anrjs ktA., ktio-is means anything 
created (as in Ro 8 39 ), and au-rou is " God's." The negative side 
is followed by the positive, TrdeTa 8e yupLkd tea! T€TpaxT]Xia/i.6Va. 
The nearest verbal parallel is in En g 5 irdvTa ivwrnov <rov cf>avepa ko.\ 
aKaXvTTTa, where the context points as here to secret sins. The 
general idea was familiar; e.g. (above, p. 55) "nihil deo clusum 
est, interest animis nostris et cogitationibus mediis intervenit." 
Mdvo) yap e^ccrri #€w, vjv\yv iSeiv (Philo, de Abrahamo, 21). But 
what the writer had in mind was a passage like that in de Cherub. 
5, where Philo explains Dt 29 29 (rd npim-rd xvpiw tw 0e<p, rd Se 

(pavepd yeviaret yvujpi/xa) by arguing, yevT/TOS Be ovBels t/cavos yvw/Arjs 

dcpai'ovs Kanociv lv6vp.-q /xa, p.6vo<; 8e 6 #eo's. Hence, he adds, the 
injunction (Nu 5 18 ) ttjv ij/vx^v u ivavriov tov Oeov a-rrjcrat." with 
head uncovered ; which means, the soul to K€(pdXaiov &6yp.a yvp.vw- 

Oelcrav kcu tt]v yvwpurjv tj K€\prjTaL a.Traft(pLaa8elcrav, Iv oi,'/€0"t rai? aKpi- 
^ccrrdTats iTriKpideicra tov aSexdcrTOV 8eov kt\., the closing description 
of God being tw p.6vo) yvp.vrjv i//u^v IBeiv hwcifxivw. For yv/xvd 
see also M. Aurel. I 2 2 6 ftebs -n-avra rd rjye/xovLKa yvfivd twv vXlkSjv 

dyyeiwy . . . 6p<£. TeTpaxT]Xio"(A£Va must mean something similar, 
"exposed" or "bared" ("aperta," vg; ir£<pavzpwp.£va, Hesych.). 

Though rpaxv^^ does not occur in the LXX, the writer was familiar with 
it in Philo, where it suggests a wrestler "downing" his opponent by seizing 
his throat. How this metaphorical use of throttling or tormenting could yield 
the metaphorical passive sense of " exposed," is not easy to see. 'i he Philonic 
sense of "depressed" or "bent down" would yield here the meaning 
"abashed," i.e. hanging down the head in shame (" conscientia male factorum 
in ruborem aguntur caputque mittunt," Wettstein). But this is hardly on a 
level with yv/xvd. The most probable clue is to be found in the practice of 
exposing an offender's face by pushing his head back, as if the word were an 
equivalent for the Latin "resupinata" in the sense of " manifesta." The 
bending back of the neck produced this exposure. Thus when Vitellius was 
dragged along the Via Sacra to be murdered, it was " reducto coma capite, 
ceu noxii solent, atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ut visendam 
praeberet faciem " (Suet. Vit. Vitell. 17). 

In the last five words, irpos ov ^p.if 6 \oyos, which are impressive 
by their bare simplicity, there is a slight play on the term Ao'yos 
here and in v. 12 , although in view of the flexible use of the term, 
e.g. in 5 11 and 13 17 , it might be even doubtful if the writer intended 
more than a verbal assonance. The general sense of the phrase 
is best conveyed by " with whom we have to reckon." (a) This 
rendering, "to whom we have to account (or, to render our ac- 
count)," was adopted without question by the Greek fathers from 


Chrysostom (aura) peAAopev Sovvai evOvvas Ttov Treirpayfjicvoiv) on- 
wards, and the papyri support the origin of the phrase as a com- 
mercial metaphor; e.g. OP. n88 5 (a.d. 13) <I>s 7rp6s o-e tov trepl 
tu>v dyi'OTyf^eVTtov] ^[rTy/xaros] €cro[/AeVov] (sc. \6yov), and Hibeh 
Papyri, 53* (246 B.C.) ireipC) ovv do-crjoAws o>s 77730s o-e tov Adyov 
lo-ojxivov. (/;) The alternative rendering, "with whom we have to 
do," has equal support in Gk. usage ; e.g. in the LXX phrase Adyos 
pot 777305 o~e(i K 2 14 , 2 K 9 5 ) and in Jg 17 7 (pa/epdv etcriv StScoviW, 
Kin Adyov ou/c l^oucrtv 77730s avdpuTrov). The former idea is pre- 
dominant, however, as the context suggests (cp. Ignat. ad Magn. 3, 
to Se toiovtov ov 77730s crdp/ca 6 Adyos, dAAct 77736s 6c6v tov to. Kpvcpia 
etSoVa), and includes the latter. It is plainly the view of the 
early anti-Marcionite treatise, which has been preserved among 
the works of Ephraem Syrus (cp. Preuschen, Zeitschrift fur die 
neutest. Wissenschaft, 191 1, pp. 243-269), where the passage is 
quoted from a text like this : ws /cat 6 IlaOAos Aeyet, £wv 6 Adyos 
tov 9zov /cat Topwrcpos V7T€p iraaav pd^atpav Storopov, Sti'/cvovpevov 
peX 01 HtpLo-jxov TTV€VjxaTO<i /cat crap/co?, ^\P L dpptwv re /cat pueAiov, 
/cat /cpirt/cds ccttiv ivdv/xiycretDv /cat ivvoiwv /capSias" /cat ou/c ccrrtv 
KTtcrts d<pavr>s ivwTTiov avTOV, dAAd tto-vto. i/xepavfj £vto7rtov avTov, on 
yv/xvol /cat Terpa^rfXtafxivoi ecrpev Iv tois dc/>#aApots avrov 1/caoTOS 
rjfxwv Adyov air<2 d7roStSdvat. The rendering, " who is our subject, 
of whom we are speaking " (77730? = with reference to, and 17p.1v 6 
Adyos as in 5 11 ), is impossibly flat. 

At this point the writer effects a transition to the main theme, 
which is to occupy him till io 18 , i.e. Christ as dpxiepeu's. He begins, 
however, by a practical appeal (vv. 14 " 16 ) which catches up the 
ideas of 2 17 - 18 3 1 . 

u As we have a great highpriest, then, who has passed through the heavens, 
Jestis the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession ; 1B for ours is no high 
priest who is incapable (fiy 5w. as in 9 9 ) of sympathizing with our weaknesses, 
but one who has been templed in every respect like ourselves (sc. irpbs rj/xds), yet 
without sinning. 16 So let us approach the throne of grace with confidence 
(yuera wapprjaias, 3 6 ), that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in 
the hour of need. 

Me'yas is a favourite adjective for dpxtepcus in Philo, 1 but when 
the writer adds, e^ovTes ovv dp^iepea pe'yav SicAT/Au^OTa Toiis 
oupavous, he is developing a thought of his own. The greatness 
of Jesus as dp^upeu's consists in his access to God not through 
any material veil, but through the upper heavens ; he has pene- 
trated to the very throne of God, in virtue of his perfect self- 
sacrifice. This idea is not elaborated till later (cp. 6 19f - 9 24f< ), in 
the sacerdotal sense. But it has been already mentioned in 2 9 - 10 , 
where Jesus the Son of God saves men by his entrance into the 
full divine glory. KpaTtopev here as in 6 18 with the genitive 
1 6 fiiv drj /ie'7<xs apxtepevs (de Somn. i. 38), even of the Logos. 


(6/i.oAoyias, see 3 1 ) ; in Paul it takes the accusative. The writer 
now (v. 15 ) reiterates the truth of 2 llf - ; the exalted Jesus is well 
able to sympathize with weak men on earth, since he has shared 
their experience of temptation. It is put negatively, then posi- 
tively. lujunraGrjcrcH is used of Jesus * as in Acta Pauli et Theclae, 
17 (os fxovo<; avveTrdOrjcrev 7rAava>/A£i'u> koct/uw) ; see below, on IO 34 . 
Origen (in Matt. xiii. 2) quotes a saying of Jesus : 8id tois dadev- 

ouvras rjadivovv ko\ Sia tows 7reiJ'a>vTas tVei'vcov kol 01a tous otij/wi'Tas 

iStywv, the first part of which may go back to Mt 8 17 (airros Tas 
ao-devuas t\a/3er) ; cp. also Mt 25 35f \ Philo uses the term even 
of the Mosaic law (de spec. leg. ii. 13, t<S 8e aTr6pu>% I^ovti <rwe- 
irdd-rjcre), but here it is more than " to be considerate." The aid 
afforded by Jesus as dpxupevs is far more than official ; it is 
inspired by fellow-feeling tcus avQeveicus Tjp.wi'. "Verius sentiunt 
qui simul cum externis aerumnis comprehendunt animi affectus, 
quales sunt metus, tristitia, horror mortis, et similes" (Calvin). 
These a<r6£vuai are the sources of temptation. 'H crap£ dcr^tv^s, 
as Jesus had said to his disciples, warning them against tempta- 
tion. Jesus was tempted Kara. 7rdvTa (2 17,18 ) Ka0' ojxoioTTjTa (a 
psychological Stoic term; the phrase occurs in OP. ix. 1202 24 
and BGU. 1028 15 , in second-century inscriptions) x w P ts d/xapTias, 
without yielding to sin. Which is a real ground for encourage- 
ment, for the best help is that afforded by those who have stood 
where we slip and faced the onset of temptation without yielding 
to it. The special reference is to temptations leading to apostasy 
or disobedience to the will of God. It is true that x^P^ a/*a/wias 
does exclude some temptations. Strictly speaking, Kara Travra is 
modified by this restriction, since a number of our worst tempta- 
tions arise out of sin previously committed. But this is not in 
the writer's mind at all. He is too eager, to enter into any 
psychological analysis. 

Philo deduces from Lv 4 s (/jl6i>oi> oi)k dvriKpvs avaSiddcrKuv, Sri 6 irpbs 
aX-qdeiav apxitpevs Kal fir] \pev5djvv/xos d/x^roxos dfiapTrj/juTiov iarlv) that the 
ideal highpriest is practically sinless {de Victimis, 10) ; but this is a thought with 
which he wistfully toys, and the idea of the Logos as unstained by contact with 
the material universe is very different from this conception of Jesus as actually 
tempted and scatheless. Nor would the transference of the idea of messiah as 
sinless account for our writer's view. To him and his readers Jesus is sinless, 
not in virtue of a divine prerogative, but as the result of a real human experience 
which proved successful in the field of temptation. 

Hence (v. 16 ) Trpocrepxoj/AcSoi ouv (jlcto, Trappr^aias. Philo (quis rer. 
div. haeres, 2) makes Trapprjcria. the reward of a good conscience, 
which enables a loyal servant of God to approach him frankly. 

1 Of God in 4 Mac 5 s5 *<""& (ptiaiv rjfuv ffvfiiradel vo/xoderuiv 6 rod KTiarrjs, 
but in the weaker sense of consideration. It is curious that 4 Mac, like 
Hebrews, uses the word twice, once of God and once of men (cp. 4 Mac 13- 8 
outojs 8r) tolvvv KadearyKvias tt)<s <t>i\a.8e\<pLas <7v/j,Tra6o{i<rr]s). 


But here (cp. ERE. ii. 786) irappqo-ia. is not freedom of utterance 
so much as resolute confidence (cp. on 3 6 ). Our writer certainly 
includes prayer in this conception of approaching God, but it is 
prayer as the outcome of faith and hope. Seneca bids Lucilius 
pray boldly to God, if his prayers are for soundness of soul and 
body, not for any selfish and material end: "audacter deum 
roga ; nihil ilium de alieno rogaturus es " {Ep. x. 4). But even 
this is not the meaning of 7rappr/crta here. The Roman argues 
that a man can only pray aloud and confidently if his desires are 
such as he is not ashamed to have others hear, whereas the 
majority of people " whisper basest of prayers to God." Our 
author does not mean " palam " by irappiqcria. 

Our approach {irpoaepx^p-eda : the verb in the sense of 
applying to a court or authority, e.g. in OP. 1119 8 -n-poo-qXOo/xev 
Trj Kpartarr] /3ov\fj, BGU. 1022) is tw Opo^w tt}s x&P lT °S> f° r grace 
is now enthroned (see 2 9f> ). For the phrase see Is 16 5 hopO^dq- 
o-erai par cAe'ovs Opovos. Our author (cp. Introd. p. xlvii), like 
those who shared the faith of apocalyptic as well as of rabbinic 
piety, regarded heaven as God's royal presence and also as the 
a-K-qv-q where he was worshipped, an idea which dated from Is 
6 lf - and Ps 29 (cp. Mechilta on Ex 15 17 ), though he only alludes 
incidentally (12 22 ) to the worship of God by the host of angels 
in the upper sanctuary. He is far from the pathetic cry of 
Azariah (Dn 3 38 ) : a>»c 1<ttlv iv to) Kaip<Z touto) . . . ov8e toVos tov 
KapTru)o-au ivoiinov aov kou eipelv eA.eos. He rather shares Philo's 
feeling {de Exsecrat. 9) that 01 dvao-^tpp-ivoi can rely upon the 
compassionate character of God {kv\ pXv iirn.iKf.ia. koI xptjo-tottjti 

tov -irapa.Ka\ovp.ivov crvyyviiip.r)v 7rpo Ti^touptas del Ti^evTOs), though 

he regards this mercy as conditioned by the sacrifice of Jesus. 
The twofold object of the approach is (a) Xapfidveiv eXeos, which 
is used for the passive of e'Aeu> (which is rare), and {b) xd° lv 
€upio-K€ii/ ktA.., an echo of the LXX phrase {e.g. Gn 6 8 ) zvpia-Ktiv 
xdpii/ ivavriov Kvpiov {tov deov). In the writer's text (A) of the 
LXX, Prov 8 17 ran 01 Be ip.k ^ToDvrts tvpr)o-ovo~i \dpiv. 1 Eis 
euKcupoy (3oi]0eiai' recalls toTs 7T€ipa£o^eVois /3or)6r}o-ai in 2 18 ; it 
signifies " for assistance in the hour of need." Eu/caipo? means 
literally "seasonable," as in Ps 104 27 {Sovvai tjjv rpo^qv airots 
evKcupov), "fitting" or "opportune" {Ep. Aristeas, 203, 236). 
The " sympathy " of Jesus is shown by practical aid to the 
tempted, which is suitable to their situation, suitable above all 
because it is timely {evKaipov being almost equivalent to iv xaipw 

1 Aristotle argues that x^P' J or benevolence must be spontaneous and 
disinterested ; also, that its value is enhanced by necessitous circumstances 
(iarui Stj x°-P is > Ka &' ^l" °' £x w " X^yccu X°-P LV vnovpyelv deo/nivy fj.r\ clvt'l tivos, 
/xrjd' 'tva tl aiiTifi T<j> inroupyovvTi dXV 'iv tKeivu) n' p.(yd\r) 5' hv 17 acpSSpa 
Seofxifip, f) fieyaKoiv Kal x a ^ e ' n '£ , v, ?) iv icaipois toiovtoU, f) fidvos f) irpwTos fj 
fidXicrra, Rhet. ii. 7. 2). 

IV. 16-V. 1.] JESUS AS PRIEST 6l 

XptLa-s, Sir 8 9 ). Philo (de sacrificantibus, 10) shows how God, for all 
his greatness, cherishes compassion (IXeov kolI olktov Aap./3dv€i tw eV 
eV8«'ais d.7ropa>TaTtov) for needy folk, especially for poor proselytes, 
who, in their devotion to him, are rewarded by his help (nap-rov rrjs ZttI tov 6ehv Kara(pvyrj<; ttjv a7r avrov fiorjdeiav). But 
the best illustration of the phrase is in Aristides, Eis tov 2,dp<nnv 
50 : are. yap St) 7ras tis iv 7ravTi Kaipto (3or)6ov KaAei, "^dpairi. 

How widely even good cursives may be found supporting a wrong reading 
is shown by the evidence for TrpoaepxofJ-eda : 6. 38. 88. 104. 177. 206*. 241. 
255- 263. 337. 378. 383. 440. 462. 467. 487. 489- 623. 635. 639. 642. 915. 
919. 920. 927. 1149. 1245. 1288. 1518. 1836. 1852. 1872. 1891. 2004. For 
?Xeos (the Hellenistic neuter, cp. Cronert's Memoria Graeca Hercu/anensis, 
176 1 ), the Attic £\eov {fkeos, masc.) is substituted by L and a few minuscules 
(Chrys. Theodoret). B om. evpu/xev. 

He now (5 1 " 10 ) for the first time begins to explain the qualifi- 
cations of the true dp^iepevs. 

(a) First, he must be humane as well as human : 

1 Every highpriest who is selected from men and appointed to act on behalf 
of men in things divine, offering gifts and sacrifices for sin, 2 can deal gently 
with those who err through ignorance, since he himself is beset with weakness — 
3 which obliges him to present offerings for his own sins as well as for those of 
the People. 

(b) Second, he must not be self-appointed. 

4 Also, it is an office which no one elects to take for himself ; he is called to 
it by God, just as Aaron was. 

The writer now proceeds to apply these two conditions to Jesus, but he 
takes them in reverse order, beginning with (b). 

5 Similarly Christ was not raised to the glory of the priesthood by himself, 
but by Him who declared to him, 

" Thou art my son, 

to-day have I become thy father." 

6 Just as elsewhere (iv tripy, sc. rbirip) he says, 

" Thou art a priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek." 
He then goes back to (a) : 

7 In the days of his flesh, with bitter cries and tears, he offered prayers 
and supplications to Him who was able to save him from death ; and he was 
heard, because of his godly fear. 8 Thus, Son though he was, he learned by 
(dcj) &v = a.irb tovtuv &) all he suffered how to obey, 9 and by being thus perfected 
he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, 10 being desig- 
nated by God highpriest "■with the rank of Melchizedek." 

rias yap apx^peu's (dealing only with Hebrew highpriests, 
and only with what is said of them in the LXX) e£ &.v6piattav 
XapPayofAevos (Nu 8 6 Xdj3e tous Acvetras e< fxecrov vlwv 'Io-paT/A.) 
KaSicrraTcu — passive, in the light of 7 28 (6 vdp,os yap avOpw-rrovs 
Ka6icrTrjo-LV dp^iepeis c^ovras aadeveiav) and of the Philonic usage 
(e.g. de vit. Jlfosis, ii. n, ™ p.eXXovTi dp^iepei KaOio-TaaOai). The 
middle may indeed be used transitively, as, e.g., in Eurip. Supplic. 
522 (7rdA.fp.0v Se toutov ovk eyd) Ka^urrapcu), and is so taken here 
by some (eg. Calvin, Kypke). But to. 7rpds tov deov is an 
adverbial accusative as in 2 17 , not the object of Kadiararai in an 
active sense. In Swpd re kcu Guaias, here as in 8 3 and 9 9 , the 


writer goes back to the LXX (A) rendering of i K 8 64 (/ecu to 
Swpov kolI To? Ova-Las). The phrase recurs in Ep. At -is teas, 234 (oi 
Scopois oiok Ovaiais), and is a generic term for sacrifices or offer- 
ings, without any distinction. The early omission of t£ (B D b 
K Lat boh pesh) was due to the idea that Bvo-ias should be 
closely connected with dpxp-n.wi' (" ut offerat dona, et sacrificia pro 
peccatis," vg). Instead of writing eis to -rrpoo-cpepetv, our author 
departs from his favourite construction of et? with the infinitive 
and writes tea irpoor^epY], in order to introduce (xeTpioiraOeic 
Suydfjiefos. This, although a participial clause, contains the lead- 
ing idea of the sentence. The dpxiepevs is able to deal gently 
with the erring People whom he represents, since he shares 
their ao-Qiveia, their common infirmity or liability to temptation. 

MeTpioTraGeu' in v. 2 is a term coined by ethical philosophy. 
It is used by Philo to describe the mean between extravagant 
grief and stoic apathy, in the case of Abraham's sorrow for the 
death of his wife (to ol irpo rac dxptov eX.6p.evov p.eTpL07ra9elv, 
De Abrah. 44) ; so Plutarch (Consol. ad Apoll. 22) speaks of ttjs 
Kara, (pvaiv iv Totoirrots p-erpioTraOeias. But here it denotes 
gentleness and forbearance, the moderation of anger in a person 
who is provoked and indignant — as in Plut. de Cohib. ira, 10, 
di'acrr?)crat Se Kat o-wcrcu, /cat cpeLcracrOaL Kat Kapreprjo-ai, 7rpa6V?7Tds 
eon Kat o~vyyvwp.7)<; kcu p-erpLOTradeias. Josephus (Ant. xii. 3. 2) 
praises this quality in Vespasian and Titus (p.eTpioTra.Qrjo-d.vTw), 
who acted magnanimously and generously towards the unruly 
Jews; Dionysius Halicamassus accuses Marcius (Ant. 8. 529) 

of lacking to €u8tdA.Aa/cTOv Kat p.€Tpi07ra9e<S, 6tt6t€ Sl opyfjs tw 

ye'voiTo. And so on. The term is allied to irpaoTrjs. The sins 
of others are apt to irritate us, either because they are repeated 
or because they are flagrant ; they excite emotions of disgust, 
impatience, and exasperation, and tempt us to be hard and harsh 
(Gal 6 1 ). The thought of excess here is excessive severity rather 
than excessive leniency. The objects of this p.eTpioiraGeii' are 
tois dyi'oouCTH' Kal irXaewjjieVois, i.e., people who sin through yield- 
ing to the weaknesses of human nature. For such offenders 
alone the piacula of atonement-day (which the writer has in mind) 
availed. Those who sinned ckouo-ius (io 26 ), not dKouca'ws, were 
without the pale ; for such presumptuous sins, which our writer 
regards specially under the category of deliberate apostasy (3 12 
io 26 ), there is no pardon possible. The phrase here is practi- 
cally a hendiadys, for tois e£ dyvotas TrAavco/xeVots : the People err 
through their dyvota. Thus dyvoelv becomes an equivalent for 
ap.apTaveiv (Sir 23 s2 etc.), just as the noun dyvor)p.a comes to 

imply sin (cp. g 7 and Jth 5 20 €t p.iv ecn-tv dyvorjp.a iv ra Xaw tovtw 
Kat a.p.aprdi'OVO'L cts tov Oebv avTwv, with Tebt. Pap. 124 4 (118 B.C.) 

and 5 3 — a proclamation by king Euergetes and queen Cleopatra 

V. 2-5.] JESUS AS PRIEST 63 

declaring "an amnesty to all their subjects for all errors, crimes," 
etc., except wilful murder and sacrilege). In the Martyr. Pauli, 
4, the apostle addresses his pagan audience as dvSpes 01 on-es eV 
rfi dyvwcaa /cat rfj irXavrj ravrr}. 

(a) Strictly speaking, only such sins could be pardoned (Lv 4 2 5 21, ", 
Nu 15 22 " 31 , Dt 17 12 ) as were unintentional. Wilful sins were not covered by 
the ordinary ritual of sacrifice (io 26 , cp. Nu 12 11 ). 

(6) The term irepiic£ only occurs in the LXX in Ep. Jer. 23. 57 and 
in 4 Mac 12 3 (to. decr/xa. irepiKel/xevov), and in both places in its literal sense 
(Symm. Is 61 10 ), as in Ac 28 20 . But Seneca says of the body, " hoc quoque 
natura ut quemdam vestem animo circumdedit " (Epist. 92), and the meta- 
phorical sense is as old as Theocritus (23 18, 14 <pevye 5' airb xpws i>(3ptv ras 
opyas ireptKei/JLevos). 

The dpxiepeu's, therefore (v. 8 ), requires to offer sacrifice for 
his own sins as well as for those of the People, ica0ws nepl tou 
Xaou outu) Kal Trepl iauTou. This twofold sacrifice is recognized 
by Philo (de vit. Mosis, ii. 1), who notes that the holder of the 
Upwavvr) must eVl TeActois iepots beseech God for blessing 
avT<5 re Kal tt}? dp^o/xeVoi?. The regulations for atonement-day 
(Lv 16 6 ' 17 ) provided that the dp^upev<s sacrificed for himself and 
his household as well as for the People (/cal 7rpoo-d£a 'Aapa>v rbv 
adcTYov TW 7rept tt}s dynaprtds olvtov koli e£iAdcr€Tai trepi avrov Kai 
tov olkov avrov . . . Kal irepl irdo~q<; o-waywyrjs vlu)v lo-paijX). But 
our author now turns from the idea of the solidarity between 
priest and People to the idea of the priest's commission from 
God. Ttji' Tip/qf (in v. 4 ) means position or office, as often, e.g. 
eirirpoiros Xajxfidvei ravr-qv tt)v rifxrjv {i.e. of supervising the house- 
hold slaves), Arist. Pol. i. 7, Ti/xds ydp Xeyo/xev elvai rds dp^ds, id. 
iii. IO, 7repl w dp^iepiwv 7ro>s T rjp^avro Kal ricriv Ifeo-ri tt}s Tt/xf}<; 
ravrr]<; p.eraXap.(3dvetv, Joseph. Ant. xx. IO. I. 'AXXd (sc. Xap.- 
fidvei) Ka\ou'p.evos, but takes it when (or, as) he is called. The 
terseness of the phrase led to the alteration (C c L) of dXXd into 
dXX' 6 (as in v. 5 ). KaflojcnTep Kal 'Aapwc. In Josephus (Ant. iii. 
8. 1), Moses tells the Israelites, vvv o' avrbs 6 6e6<> 'AapCJva tt}s 
Tip.rj<i Tavrr]<; d£iov 2/cpive Kai rovrov rjprjraL lepea. 

irepl (before dp-apnoliv in v. 3 ) has been changed to virep fn C c D c K L etc. 
(conforming to 5 1 ). There is no difference in meaning (cp. irepl, Mt 26 28 = 
virep, Mk. and Lk.), for irepl (see io 6 - 8 - 18 - 2S 13 11 ) has taken over the sense 
of virep. 

For Kaddifirep (k* A B D* 33) in v. 4 , H c D c K L P * 6. 1288. 1739 read 
the more obvious Kadawep (C ? syr hkl Chrys. Cyr. Alex. Procopius : KaOdx). 

In v. 5 oox eauToi/ eSo^acrce, while the term 86£a was specially 
applicable to the highpriestly office (cf. 2 Mac 14 7 oOev d(peX6- 

/xevos tt]v TrpoyovLKTjv 86£av, Ae'yw St; ttjv ap^tepwcrwTyv), the phrase 

is quite general, as in the parallel Jn 8 54 . The following yevi]- 
OTJmi is an epexegetic infinitive, which recurs in the Lucan 
writings (Lk i 54 - 72 , Ac 15 10 ) and in the earlier Psalter of Solo- 


mon (2 28 - 40 etc.). After d\V we must supply some words like 
auTov eSo^affey. 

The argument runs thus : We have a great dpxiepeu's, Jesus 
the Son of God (4 14 ), and it is as he is Son that he carries out 
the vocation of apx ii P*v<;. There is something vital, for the 
writer's mind, in the connexion of dpxicpcus and Ylos. Hence he 
quotes (v. 5 ) his favourite text from Ps 2 1 before the more apposite 
one (in v. 6 ) from Ps no 4 , implying that the position of divine 
Son carried with it, in some sense, the role of dpx<-epevs. This 
had been already suggested in i 2,3 where the activities of the 
Son include the purification of men from their sins. Here the 
second quotation only mentions lepers, it is true ; but the writer 
drew no sharp distinction between Upeus and dp^iepevs. In 
Kcrrd tt)s Td|ir MeXxicreSe'ic, Tafis for the writer, as 7 15 proves 
(Kara r»)v ofxoLOTrjra MeA^icrcSe/c), has a general meaning; 1 Jesus 
has the rank of a Melchizedek, he is a priest of the Melchizedek 
sort or order, though in the strict sense of the term there was no 
Ta£is or succession of Melchizedek priests. 

Td£is in the papyri is often a list or register ; in OP. 1266 24 (a. D. 98) 
iv T&!-et means "in the class" (of people). It had acquired a sacerdotal 
nuance, e.g. Michel 735 125f " (the regulations of Antiochus I. ), Sons re hv 
vcrripwi xpb" ui tol^lv Ad/377 ravT-qv, and occasionally denoted a post or office 
{e.g. Tebt. P 297 s , A.D. 123). 

°Os ktX. Some editors (e.g. A. B. Davidson, Liinemann, 
Peake, Hollmann) take vv. 7 ' 10 as a further proof of (6). But 
the writer is here casting back to (a), not hinting that the 
trying experiences of Jesus on earth proved that his vocation was 
not self-sought, but using these to illustrate the thoroughness 
with which he had identified himself with men. He does this, 
although the parallel naturally broke down at one point. Indeed 
his conception of Christ was too large for the categories he had 
been employing, and this accounts for the tone and language of 
the passage, (a) Jesus being x w P i<; a/tapTt'as did not require to 
offer any sacrifices on his own behalf; and (b) the case of 
Melchizedek offered no suggestion of suffering as a vital element 
in the vocation of an apxieptvs. As for the former point, while 
the writer uses Trpoareveyxas in speaking of the prayers of Jesus, 
this is at most a subconscious echo of 7rpocrc/>epeiv in vv. 1-3 ; there 
is no equivalent in Jesus to the sacrifice offered by the OT 
ap^tepeus, 7repi eavTov . . . -rrepl d/xapTiun/. The writer starts with 
his parallel, for ev reus r/fiepais rrj^ crap/<os avrov corresponds to 
7T€piK€tTai ao-Oeveiav (v. 2 ) ; but instead of developing the idea of 
sympathy in an official (fierpioTraOeiv Swd/Aevos ktA.), he passes to 
the deeper idea that Jesus qualified himself by a moral discipline 

1 As in 2 Mac 9 18 ivi<TTo\i)v %x owa - v iKeTijplas rd^iv, Ep. Arist. 69, 
Kpr)iridos tyovai ral-iv. 


to be dpxupevs in a pre-eminent sense. He mentions the prayers 
and tears of Jesus here, as the faith of Jesus in 2 12f -, for the 
express purpose of showing how truly he shared the lot of man 
on earth, using Serjcreis re Kal iKCTTjpias, a phrase which the writer 
may have found in his text (A) of Jb 4o 22 ( 27 ) Se?jcreis xal iKerr/pias, 
but which was classical {e.g. Isokrates, de Pace, 46, 7roAAas 
t/c£T?7pias »cat Seij<r€L<; iroLovfAevoi). 'IxeT^pta had become an equiva- 
lent for iKecrta, which is actually the reading here in 1 (Secerns re 
teal iKeio-tas). The phrase recurs in a Ptolemaic papyrus (Brunet 
de Presle et E. Egger's Papyrus Grecs du Musee du Louvre, 2 7 22 ), 
Xcu'peiv o-e d£iw ficra Se^crews Kal tKCTeias, though in a weakened 
sense. The addition of fie-rd Kpauyrjs (here a cry of anguish) 
Icrxupas Kal SaicpuW may be a touch of pathos, due to his own 
imagination, 1 or suggested by the phraseology of the 22nd psalm, 
which was a messianic prediction for him (cp. above, 2 12 ) as for 
the early church ; the words of v. 3 in that psalm would hardly 
suit (/<€Kpd£o/xai 17/x.epas 7rpo? ere /cat ovk elaaKOvarj), but phrases 
like that of V. 6 (7rpo9 <rc eVe'/cpa^av Kal icrw6r]crav) and V. 25 (ev T<Z 

KeKpayerai fxe 7rpos avrbv kirrjKovaiv fiov) might have been in his 
mind. Tears were added before long to the Lucan account of 
the passion, at 22 44 (Epiph. Ancor. 3T, dAAd " kol eKXavaev" KetTat 
ev tw Kara A.ovk3.v euayyeAta) iv tois dotopOwToi'i dj/rtypdepots). It 

is one of the passages which prove how deeply the writer was 
impressed by the historical Jesus ; the intense faith and courage 
and pitifulness of Jesus must have deeply moved his mind. He 
seeks to bring out the full significance of this for the saving 
work of Jesus as Son. His methods of proof may be remote and 
artificial, to our taste, but the religious interest which prompted 
them is fundamental. No theoretical reflection on the qualifica- 
tion of priests or upon the dogma of messiah's sinlessness could 
have produced such passages as this. 

Later Rabbinic piety laid stress on tear?, e.g. in Sohar Exod. fol. 5. 19, 
" Rabbi Jehuda said, all things of this world depend on penitence and 
prayers, which men offer to God (Blessed be He !), especially if one sheds 
tears along with his prayers"; and in Synopsis Sohar, p. 33, n. 2, "There 
are three kinds of prayers, entreaty, crying, and tears. Entreaty is offered 
in a quiet voice, crying with a raised voice, but tears are higher than all." 

In d-rro ttjs euXa^etas, the sense of €v\a/3eia in 12 28 and of 
ev\a(3€La6ai in n 7 shows that airo here means "on account of" 
(as is common in Hellenistic Greek), and that d7r6 rrj^ ewAaySctas 
must be taken, as the Greek fathers took it, " on account of his 
reverent fear of God," pro sua reverentia (vg), " because he had 

1 Like that of Hos 12 4 , where tears are added to the primitive story (Gn 
32 26 ) of Jacob's prayer (iviirxvffev nera ayyiXov Kal i}dvva.adr]' gK\avcrai> Kal 
ide-qdr^adp fwv). In 2 Mac II 6 the Maccabean army fiera ddvp/xQv Kal BaKpvuv 
iKirevov rbv Ki'ipiov. 


God in reverence " (Tyndale ; " in honoure," Coverdale). The 
writer is thinking of the moving tradition about Jesus in Geth- 
semane, which is now preserved in the synoptic gospels, where 
Jesus entreats God to be spared death : 'Aft/35. 6 -irar-qp, iravra. 
Sward aoC TrapiveyKt to TroTrjpLOV cor ifxov tovto (Mk 14 36 ). This 
repeated supplication corresponds to the " bitter tears and cries." 
Then Jesus adds, <iAA' ov ti iyoi OiXw, dXXd ri o-v. This is his 
euAd/?eia, the godly fear which leaves everything to the will of 
God. Such is the discipline which issues in v-n-aKo-q. Compare 
Ps. Sol 6 8 /cat Kvpios clo-r)Kov<r€ Trpo<revx7]v 7ravr6s ev cpoftw 6eov. 

(a) The alternative sense of "fear" appears as early as the Old Latin 
version (d = exauditus a metu). This meaning of euXafieia (Beza : " liberatus 
ex metu") occurs in Joseph. Ant. xi. 6. 9, evXafielas aOrr)v (Esther) diroXvwv. 
Indeed ei/\a/3eia (cp. Anz, 359) and its verb eu\a(3eccrdai are common in this 
sense ; cp. e.g. 2 Mac 8 16 fir) KaraTrXayijuai tois 5e<rfilois f/.r]5£ evXafieiadai 
TT\v . . . noXuTrX-qdelav : Sir 41 3 fir) eiiXa^ov Kplfia davdrov : Wis 17 8 obroi 
KarayiXatTTov evXa(3eiav ivdirovv. But here the deeper, religious sense is more 
relevant to the context. " In any case the answer consisted . . . in courage 
given to face death. . . . The point to be emphasized is, not so much that 
the prayer of Jesus was heard, as that it needed to be heard" (A. B. Bruce, 
p. 186). 

(d) Some {e.g. Linden in Studien und Kritiken, i860, 753 f., and Blass, 
§ 21 1) take curb rrjs evXa^elas with what follows ; this was the interpretation of 
the Peshitto ("and, although he was a son, he learned obedience from fear 
and the sufferings which he bore"). But the separation of dirb ttjs evXafSelas 
from d<p' wv and the necessity of introducing a xal before the latter phrase 
point to the artificiality of this construction. 

In v. 8 Kcuirep wf 0I69 (/caurcp being used with a participle as 
in 7 5 -i2 17 ) means, "Son though he was," not "son though he 
was." The writer knows that painful discipline is to be expected 
by all who are sons of God the Father; he points out, in i2 5f -, 
that every son, because he is a son, has to suffer. Here the 
remarkable thing is that Jesus had to suffer, not because but 
although he was vl6<s, which shows that Jesus is Son in a unique 
sense ; as applied to Jesus uios means something special. As 
divine vlos in the sense of i lf -, it might have been expected that 
he would be exempt from such a discipline. *Os . . . epaQev 
. . . uTraicor)e is the main thread of the sentence, but xaiirep wv 
ulos attaches itself to ejiaQev kt\. rather than to the preceding 
participles irpoo-eveyicas and ciaaxouaOeis (Chrys. Theophyl.). 
With a daring stroke the author adds, ep.aSei' d<f>' &v Iira0e tV 
inra.Kor\v. The paronomasia goes back to a common Greek 
phrase which is as old as Aeschylus (Agatn. 177 f.), who de- 
scribes Zeus as rbv irddei fxd6o<; QivTa Kupiws «X £U/ > an< ^ ^ eus now 
(W. Headlam)— 

"The heart in time of sleep renews 
Aching remembrance of her bruise, 
And chastening wisdom enters wills that most refuse" — 


which, the poet adds, is a sort of x^P ts /Siaios from the gods. 
This moral doctrine, that u-a0os brings p.ddo<;, is echoed by 
Pindar {Isthm. i. 40, 6 7rov?7o-ai$ Se vow kox irpofidOuav cpepei) and 
other writers, notably by Philo (de vit. Mos. iii. 38, toutous ov 
Aoyos dAA. Ipya Traioevei" Tradovres fl&ovTai to ifiov avf/evSes, iirei 
fiadovTes oix eyvwo-av : de spec. leg. iii. 6, iv e*c rov Trafleiv fiaOrj 
kt\. : de SOtnn. ii. 15, o iraBiov aK/3i/?ws lp,a#ev, on tov Oiov (Gn 

50 19 ) iariv). But in the Greek authors and in Philo it is almost 
invariably applied to " the thoughtless or stupid, and to open and 
deliberate offenders" (Abbott, Diat. 3208a), to people who can 
only be taught by suffering. Our writer ventures, therefore, to 
apply to the sinless Jesus an idea which mainly referred to young 
or wilful or undisciplined natures. The term uiraKOTJ only occurs 
once in the LXX, at 2 S 2 2 36 (*ai VTraxor} crov lirX-qOvviv p.e, A), 
where it translates niij?. The general idea corresponds to that 

of io 5 " 9 below, where Jesus enters the world submissively to do 
the will of God, a vocation which involved suffering and self- 
sacrifice. But the closest parallel is the argument of Paul in Ph 
2 6 " 8 , that Jesus, born in human form, tTairtivuicrev kavrbv yevopevos 
vttyJkoos (sc. t<3 6ew) fj-txpt. Oavdrov, and the conception of the 
viraKorj of Jesus (Ro 5 18, w ) in contrast to the TrapaKorj of Adam. 
What our writer means to bring out here, as in 2 10f -, is the 
practical initiation of Jesus into his vocation for God and men. 
"Wherever there is a vocation, growth and process are inevi- 
table. . . . Personal relations are of necessity relations into which 
one grows ; the relation can be fully and practically constituted 
only in the practical exercise of the calling in which it is involved. 
So it was with Christ. He had, so to speak, to work Himself 
into His place in the plan of salvation, to go down among the 
brethren whom He was to lead to glory and fully to identify 
Himself with them, not of course by sharing their individual 
vocation, but in the practice of obedience in the far harder 
vocation given to Him. That obedience had to be learned, not 
because His will was not at every moment perfect . . . but 
simply because it was a concrete, many-sided obedience" (W. 
Robertson Smith, Expositor 1 , ii. pp. 425, 426). TeXeiwGeis in v. 9 
recalls and expands the remark of 2 10 , that God " perfected " 
Jesus by suffering as tov apxqybv rrjs o-wT?/pias avrwv, and the 
argument of 2 17 - 18 . The writer avoids the technical Stoic terms 
TrpoKOTTTCLv and TrpoKoirr). He prefers TtXctovv and TeAeiwo-ts, not 
on account of their associations with the sacerdotal consecration 
of the OT ritual, but in order to suggest the moral ripening 
which enabled Jesus to offer a perfect self-sacrifice, and also 
perhaps with a side-allusion here to the death-association of 
these terms. 


Philo (de Abrah. n) observes that nature, instruction, and practice are the 
three things essential irpbs Te\ii6rr]Ta rov /3iov, oure yap 8i5affKa\iai> 8.vev 
(fcuaews ?) dcr/cTjuews TeXeiwdrjvai dvvarbv ovre (pvais iirl iripas 4<ttIv i\6eli> tuaur) 
5^x a T °v l*o.deiv. 

Amos awTT]pias was a common Greek phrase. Thus Philo 
speaks of the brazen serpent as amo; o-wirr/ptas ycvo/xevo? 7ravreA.ous 
tois Oeao-afxivois {de Agric. 22), Aeschines {in Ctesiph. 57) has 
•nys p.\v cruiTrjpLav rfj 7ro\ei tous Oeovs amovs yeywq/j.evov<;, and in 
the de Mundo, 398^, the writer declares that it is fitting for God 
cutiov tc ylvzaBai rots eVi rrj<s yf)<; (TUTrjpias. ZuTTjpia alw^ios is 
a LXX phrase (Is 45 17 ), but not in the sense intended here 
(cp. 2 3 ). The collocation of Jesus learning how to obey God 
and of thus proving a saviour tois uira,Kououo-ir auTw is remarkable. 
At first sight there is a clue to the sense in Philo, who declares 
that " the man who is morally earnest," receiving God's kingdom, 
" does not prove a source of evil to anyone (amos yiVeTai), but 
proves a source of the acquisition and use of good things for all 
who obey him " (7racri tois vtttjkoo^, de Abrah. 45). This refers 
to Abraham, but to the incident of Gn 23 s , not to that of 
Melchizedek ; Philo is spiritualizing the idea of the good man as 
king, and the vtzt\k6oi are the members of his household under 
his authority. The parallel is merely verbal. Here by Traffic 
tois uiraKououan' aurw the writer means ol TrurrcwavTes (4 3 ), but 
with a special reference to their loyalty to Christ. Disobedience 
to Christ or to God (3 18 4 6 - u ) is the practical expression of 
disbelief. It is a refusal to take Christ for what he is, as God's 
appointed <ipx<-epev<;. The writer then adds (v. 10 ) irpoo-ayopeuGels 
utto Tou 0€ou dpxiepeus Kara. tx)v rd^iv MeXxio-e8€K, in order to 
explain how, thus commissioned, he brought the o-coTT/pta auovios. 
The paragraph is thus rounded off, like that of vv. 6 - 6 , with a 
reference to the Melchizedek priesthood, which the writer regards 
as of profound importance, and to which he now proposes to 
advance. Though irpoa-ayopevw is not used in this sense ("hail," 
"designate") in the LXX, the usage is common in Hellenistic 
writings like 2 Maccabees (i 36 4 7 io 9 ) and Josephus (e.g. c. 
Apion. i. 311). But the Melchizedek type of priesthood is not 
discussed till 6 20 7 lf# . The interlude between 5 10 and 6 20 is 
devoted to a stirring exhortation ; for this interpretation of the 
Son as priest is a piece of yj/wo-is which can only be imparted 
to those who have mastered the elementary truths of the Chris- 
tian religion, and the writer feels and fears that his readers are 
still so immature that they may be unable or unwilling to grasp 
the higher and fuller teaching about Christ. The admonition 
has three movements of thought, 5 11 " 14 , 6 1-8 , and 6 9 " 19 . 

11 On this point I(7]filv, plural of authorship, as 2 5 ) have a great deal to say, 
which it is hard to make intelligible to yon. For {kcl\ ydp = etenim) you have 

V. 11, 12.] BACKWARDNESS 69 

grown dull of hearing. 12 Though by this time you should be teaching other 
people, you still need someone to teach you once more the rudimentary prin- 
ciples of the divine revelation. You are in need of milk, not of solid food. 
13 ( For anyone who is fed on milk is unskilled in moral truth ; he is 1 a mere 
babe. u Whereas solid food is for the mature, for those who have their 
faculties trained by exercise to distinguish good and evil. ) 6 1 Let us pass on 
then to what is mature, leaving eletnentary Christian doctrine behind, instead 
of laying the foundation over again with repentance from dead works, with 
faith in God, 2 with instruction about ablutions and the laying on of hands, 
about the resurrection of the dead and eternal punishment. 8 With God's 
permission zve will take this step. 

riepl ou {i.e. on dp^iepev<; /card -rr)v to.$iv M.) iroXus ktX. (v. 11 ). 
The entire paragraph (vv. 11 " 14 ) is full of ideas and terms current 
in the ethical and especially the Stoic philosophy of the day. 
Thus, to begin with, ttoXvs (sc. Zo-ti) 6 Xdyos is a common literary 
phrase for " there is much to say " ; e.g. Dion. Hal. ad Amm. 
i. 3, 7roXvs yap 6 7r€pi avTwv Xo'yos, and Lysias in Pancleonem, n, 
ocra i*kv ovv avrodi ippyOrj, 7roXi>s av elrj fioc Xdyos Se^ycar^ai. 
IIoAu's and 8vo-€pp.rjvevTo<; are separated, as elsewhere adjectives 
are (e.g. 2 17 ). For the general sense of 8ucrepp,rji'euTos Xeyew, see 
Philo, de migrat. Abrah. 1 8, fjs ra pcv dXXa pLaKporipwv i) Kara 
tw irapovra Kdipbv SetTcu Xdywv kol vTrepOereov, and Dion. Halic. 
de Comp. viii. 7repi wv /cat 7roXvs 6 Xdyos Kal fiaOeia r) #ewpia. 

^va-ep/xrjvevTos occurs in an obscure and interpolated passage of 
Philo's de Somniis (i. 32, dXeKTcu tlvl kcu Svcrepp.rjV€VTU) 6ia), and 
Artemidorus (Oneirocr. iii. 67, 01 oveipoi . . . ttolkiXol kol -rroXXols 
8vaepfx.7]vevTOL) uses it of dreams. 'E-rrei ktX. (explaining Suo-ep/177- 
vevroi.) for the fault lies with you, not with the subject. N<o8pds 
only occurs once in the LXX, and not in this sense (Pr 2 2 29 
dvSpao-6 vtaQpois, tr. Sjfr'n); even in Sir 4 29 n 12 it means no more 
than slack or backward (as below in 6 12 ). It is a common 
Greek ethical term for sluggishness, used with the accusative or 
the (locative) dative. With 0*017 !t denotes dulness. The literal 
sense occurs in Heliodorus (v. 10: tyw fiev ovv rjad6/j.r]v . . . 
Ta^a p.iv irov Kal 8l r)XiKLav vw^poTcpos cov ttjv aKorjv' vdcros yap 
aXXwv re kol wtw to yr/pas), and the metaphorical sense of d*oai 
is illustrated by Philo's remark in quis rer. div. haer. 3 : iv di/^ois 
dvSpiacrtv, ot? wTa plv ccrriv, aKoal 8' ovk eveicriv. 

Why (Kal yap, v. 12 ), the writer continues, instead of being 
teachers you still need a teacher. For xP €ta w i tn the article and 
infinitive (too SiSdcriceu' 2 ktX.), cp. the similar use of xpeW in OP. 
1488 25 . In what follows, Tifd, the masculine singular, gives a 
better sense than TtW, the neuter plural. " Ye again have need 
of (one) to teach you what are the elements " (sah boh) ; but it 

1 D* inserts aK/xr/v (Mt 15 16 ) between yap and icrriv : "he is still a mere 
babe." Blass adopts this, for reasons of rhythm. 

2 1912 and Origen read (with 462) diSdo-Ke<r0ai, and omit v/ids. 


is the elementary truths themselves, not what they are, that need 
to be taught. Tot oroixeia here means the ABC or elementary 
principles (see Burton's Galatians, pp. 5101".), such as he men- 
tions in 6 1 - 2 . He defines them further as -rfjs apX"n s T ^ y ^°ywv 
0€ou, where to. Xoyia 6eov means not the OT but the divine 
revelation in general, so that i-a o\ t. apx^ s corresponds to the 
Latin phrase " prima elementa." The words 6<J>ei\okres et^ai 
Si&doxaXoi simply charge the readers with backwardness. " The 
expression, ' to be teachers,' affirms no more than that the 
readers ought to be ripe in Christian knowledge. Once a man 
is ripe or mature, the qualification for teaching is present " 
(Wrede, p. 32). The use of the phrase in Greek proves that it 
is a general expression for stirring people up to acquaint them- 
selves with what should be familiar. See Epict. Enchir. 51, 

ttoZov ovv In SiSacrKaXov 7rpocrSo/ca5 ; . . . ovk (.tl et /xeipd/aov, dXXd 

dvrjp fj8r) Te'Aeio?. It was quite a favourite ethical maxim in 
antiquity. Thus Cyrus tells the Persian chiefs that he would be 
ashamed to give them advice on the eve of battle : 618a yap v/aSs 
Tcun-a €7r((rra/i,ei/ovs kcu /Ae/xcXenjKOTas ko.1 dcrKOvVras 8id Te'Xovs 
oldirep cyw, wcttc kolv dXXovs cikotios dv SiSdcrxotTC (Cyrop. iii. 3. 
35). Similarly we have the remark of Aristophanes in Plato, 
Sympos. iSgd, eyd> ovv 7reipdo" ifjuv el<rr]yr)(Ta.cr8a.i rrjv SvvafiLV 
avrov, v/x€L<i Se twv aWwv SiSdo-KaXoi ecrea-de, and the reply given 
by Apollonius of Tyana to a person who asked why he never put 
questions to anybody : on /u.eipd/aov d>v i£,rJTr]cra, vvv Se ov XPV 
fyrelv dXXd. Si8do-K£iv d evpr)Ka (Philostratus, Vita Apoll. i. 17). 
Seneca tells Lucilius the same truth : " quousque disces ? iam et 
praecipe (Ep. 33 9 ). Thus the phrase here offers no support 
whatever to any theories about the readers of Hpos 'Efipaiovs 
being a group of teachers, or a small, specially cultured com- 
munity. The author, himself a ouW/caAo?, as he is in possession 
of this mature yvwo-is, is trying to shame his friends out of their 
imperfect grasp of their religion. That is all. reyoVaTe xp^ av 
Ixodes is a rhetorical variant for xP^ av «X €T€ > due to the writer's 
fondness for yeyova. If there is any special meaning in the 
larger phrase, it is that detected by Chrysostom, who argues that 
the writer chose it deliberately : tovtio-tlv, v^els rjOeXrjo-are, v/tcts 
eavTOvs et? tovto KaTeaTrjo-are, cts ravrrjv ti)v xpeiav. They are 
responsible for this second childhood of theirs. The comparison 1 
of milk and solid food is one of the most common in Greek 

1 Origen (Philocalia, xviii. 23) uses this passage neatly to answer Celsus, 
who had declared that Christians were afraid to appeal to an educated and 
intelligent audience. He quotes 5 12f - as well as I Co 3 2 '-, arguing that in 
the light of them it must be admitted yfxds, 6<ttj duvafus, irivra TrpdrTOfiev 
virtp rod (ppovi/xwv dudpQv ytviadai rbv avWoyov 7)nwV k<x1 to. iv rffxiv yudXtoTa 
koKo. koX 6e1a r6re ToK/xCii-iev 4u roh irpds to Koivbv oiaXdyois (pipeiv eh ixiaov s 
6t einropov/j.ev avverCjv cucpoaTuiv. 

V. 12-14.] IMMATURITY 7 1 

ethical philosophy, as in Epictetus, e.g. ii. 16. 39, ov flc'Xeis »J8ij 
o)S to. 7rai8ta d7roya\a«Tto-^vat kcli aimo-dat rpo(f>f)<; crrepewrcpas, 
and iii. 24. 9, ovk aTroya\a.KTiaofjLtv fj8r] iroO' eavrovs, and parti- 
cularly in Philo. A characteristic passage from the latter writer 
is the sentence in de agric. 2 : €7rei Se vrj-rriois fikv la-n ydXa rpo^, 
reXciois Se ra e»c irvpu>v TreupvaTa, Kai i/'v^tjs yaXaKTwScis pikv av 
euv Tpocfaal Kara rr]v Trai8t,Kr)v ^Xi/a'av ra rrj<; iyKvxXiov p.ovaiKrj<; 
7rp07raio"eup.aTa, re'Xeiai Se Kai dvSpdcrii' €yu.7rpe7T€ts ai 81a <ppovr)(rew<; 
kcu (TO)(f>po(rvvr)<; Kai a7ra(rr;s dpe-ri)? v(pr)yrjcr€i<;. Our writer adopts 
the metaphor, as Paul had done (1 Co 3 1- 2 ), and adds a general 
aside (vv. 13>14 ) in order to enforce his remonstrance. He does 
not use the term yvwo-is, and the plight of his friends is not due 
to the same causes as operated in the Corinthian church, but 
he evidently regards his interpretation of the priesthood of Christ 
as mature instruction, oreped Tpo<J>rj. 'O p.€T€'xwe ydXaitTos is one 
whose only food (p.(Tex eLV as m I Co 10 17 etc.) is milk ; direipos 
is "inexperienced," and therefore "unskilled," in Xoyou Sikcho- 
0-^5 — a n ethical phrase for what moderns would call " moral 
truth," almost as in Xen. Cyrop. i. 6. 31, avrjp SiSdo-KaXos tu>v 
7ratSwv, os eSi'Sao-Kev apa rovs 7rato"as tt)v §iKatoo~vviqv ktX., or in M. 
Aurelius xi. 10, xii. 1. Thus, while Sikcuoctucti here is not a 
religious term, the phrase means more than (a) " incapable of 
talking correctly " (Delitzsch, B. Weiss, von Soden), which is, no 
doubt, the mark of a vtqttlo<s, but irrelevant in this connexion ; 
or (b) " incapable of understanding normal speech," such as 
grown-up people use (Riggenbach). TeXeiwi' Be kt\. (v. 14 ). The 
clearest statement of what contemporary ethical teachers meant by 
Te'Xaos as mature, is (cp. p. 70) in Epict. Enchirid. 51, "how long 
(eis 7rotov en xpovov) will you defer thinking of yourself as worthy 
of the very best . . . ? You have received the precepts you 
ought to accept, and have accepted them. Why then do you 
still wait for a teacher (SiSdo-KaXov 7rpocrSo/<as), that you may put 
off amending yourself till he comes ? You are a lad no longer, 
you are a full-grown man now (ovk Itl el p,€ipaKiov, dXXd av^p 
T7S77 Te'Xetos). . . . Make up your mind, ere it is too late, to live 
d)s riXeiov Kai irpoKoirTovra." Then he adds, in words that recall 
He i2 lf - : " and when you meet anything stiff or sweet, glorious 

or inglorious, remember that vvv 6 dyuiv Kai 7/817 7rdpeo"ri ra 

'OXvfXTna." As Pythagoras divided his pupils into v^ttloi and 
Te'Xeioi, so our author distinguishes between the immature and 
the mature (cp. 1 Co 2 6 ev tois reXeiois, 3 1 vy-Triois). In Bid ji]i> 
iiiv (vg. " pro consuetudine ") he uses e£is much as does the writer 
of the prologue to Sirach (iKavrjv Z$iv 7rcp17ro1.77crdp.6vo';), for facility 
or practice. 1 It is not an equivalent for mental faculties here, 

1 " Firma quaedam facilitas quae apud Graecos ££is nominatur" (Quint. 
Inst it. Orat. 10. 1). 


but for the exercise of our powers. These powers or faculties 
are called to. aio-0r)Trjpia. AiV^Tr/piov was a Stoic term for an 
organ of the senses, and, like its English equivalent " sense," 
easily acquired an ethical significance, as in Jer 4 19 to. ala-B^r^pia 
tt/s KapSta? fiov. The phrase Y e Y u f lv ' acr f JL€ ' , ' a oiffOtjTrjpia may be 
illustrated from Galen (de dign. puis. iii. 2, os piv yap av evaicrOrjTo- 
toltov (jivaLV T€ KOU to aladrjTrjpLOV exj] ycyvfjLva(TiA€vov iKavm . . . 
owros av apiaTOS clr) yvwp.oov twv cvtos t>7roKeipeva)i>, and de complexu, 
ii. : XeXoyiafxevov p.ev eoriv dvSpos tovs Xoyicr/xovs oi>s eiprjKa kcli 
yeyvfAvao-jAtva ttjv alaOrjcrtv ev TroWfj rrj Kara p,e'pos i/JLireipia ktA.), 

yeyv/xvaaixtva being a perfect participle used predicatively, like 
TrefpvTivjxevrjv in Lk 13 6 , and yeyvp.vao-p.eVoi/ above. Compare 
what Marcus Aurelius (iii. 1) says about old age; it may come 
upon us, bringing not physical failure, but a premature decay of 
the mental and moral faculties, e.g., of self-control, of the sense 
of duty, Kai oVa roiavra Xoyiap-ov o-i>yyeyvp.vacrp:evou iravv xpr^ei. 
Elsewhere (ii. 13) he declares that ignorance of moral distinctions 
(ayvoia dyaflwv /cal kolkwv) is a blindness as serious as any inability 
to distinguish black and white. The power of moral discrimina- 
tion (irpos SidKpio-iv koXou tc Kal kcikou) is the mark of maturity, 
in contrast to childhood (cp. e.g. Dt i 39 7r5v 7raioYov ve'ov oo-ns 
ovk oTSev ayp-epov ayadbv 17 kokov). Compare the definition of 
to tjOlkov in Sextus Empiricus {Hyp. Pyrrh. iii. 168): oirep Sokci 
7repi tt)v 8tctKpio"iv twv re kclXwv kcu kolkwv ical dSiacpopcov Kara- 

In spite of Resch's arguments (Texte u. Untermchungen, xxx. 3. U2f. ), 
there is no reason to hear any echo of the well-known saying attributed to 
Jesus : yiveade Sk 86ki/xoi Tpairegirai, to. (ih airoSoKi/xdfovTes, to 5e icaXdv 

A l0 — well then (as in i2 12 - 28 ) — eirl t6v Te\eioTT]Ta <J>epojp.e0a 
(6 1 ). It is a moral duty to grow up, and the duty involves an 
effort. The TeXeioTr/s in question is the mature mental grasp of 
the truth about Christ as dpxiepeu's, a truth which the writer is 
disappointed that his friends still find it difficult to understand. 
However, Sia tov xpovov they ought to understand it. He has every 
reason to expect an effort from them, and therefore he follows 
up his remonstrance with a word of encouragement. Instead of 
the sharp, severe tone of vv. uf -, he now speaks more hopefully. 
The connexion is not easy. We expect "however" instead of 
"well then." But the connexion is not made more easy by 
regarding 6 lf - as a resolve of the writer : " since you are so im- 
mature, I am going on myself to develop the higher teaching." 
It would be senseless for a teacher to take this line, and it is not 
facilitated by reading <pep6>e0a. The plural is not the literary 
plural as in 5 11 . The writer wishes to carry his readers along 
with him. " If you want anyone to instruct you over again in 


rudimentary Christianity, 1 am not the man ; I propose to carry 
you forward into a higher course of lessons. Come, let us 
advance, you and I together." The underlying thought, which 
explains the transition, is revealed in the next paragraph (vv. 4f -), 
where the writer practically tells his readers that they must either 
advance or lose their present position of faith, 1 in which latter 
case there is no second chance for them. In spite of his un- 
qualified censure in 5 12 , he shows, in 6 9f -, that they are really 
capable of doing what he summons them to try in 6 lf -, i.e. to 
think out the full significance of Jesus in relation to faith and 
forgiveness. Only thus, he argues, can quicken the faint pulse of 
your religious life. " Religion is something different from mere 
strenuous thinking on the great religious questions. Yet it still 
remains true that faith and knowledge are inseparable, and that 
both grow stronger as they react on one another. More often 
than we know, the failure of religion, as a moral power, is due to 
no other cause than intellectual sloth" (E. F. Scott, p. 44). 
After the parenthesis of 5 13 - u , the writer resumes the thought 
with which he started in 5 Ua "you must make an effort to enter 
into this larger appreciation of what Christ means." "A<f>erres . . . 
4>epwfA€0a is a phrase illustrated by Eurip. Androm. 392-393, 
rryv apyy)v d(£eis | 7rpos ttjv reXevryjv varepav ovaav </>epj? : by 
adores the writer means "leaving behind," and by cp€pwp.e9a 
"let us advance." 'A<f>tr)[xi might even mean "to omit" ("not 
mentioning ") ; it is so used with Ao'yov ( = to pass over without 
mentioning), e.g. in Plutarch's an sent respublica gerenda sit, 18, 
aXX' d^e'i'Tts, ei fiovXei, t6v airoo-irwvTa. ttJs 7roA.iTeias Aoyov e/ceivo 

cr/coTTw/xev rfi-q ktX., and even independently (cp. Epict. iv. 1. 15, tov Katcrapa 7rposTO ivapbv acpwp.ev, and Theophrastus, prooem. d<£eis 
to irpooipLia^to-Oai koll 7roXXa irepl tov 7rpdy/xaTOS Aeyeiv). In what 
follows, TOf ttjs dpx'ns tou XpioTou \6yov is a variant for to. o-Toi^eia 
ttJs dp^^s Twv Xoyiwv tov 6eov (5 12 ). Tov Xpto-rov is an objective 
genitive ; the writer is not thinking of injunctions issued by 
Christ (so Harnack, Constitution and Law of the Church, p. 344). 
Blass follows L in reading Xon?6v after Xoyov — needlessly. 

The use of the Oep-eXiof metaphor after -rijs dpxrjs was natural ; 
it occurs in Epictetus (ii. 15. 8, ov OeXeis tt)v ap^v o-rijo-ai kcu tov 
6ep.£Xiov) and in Philo (de spec. leg. ii. 13, a.pyr\v Twrqv /3aAXo- 
/xevos S>o-n-£p 0ep,eXi6v nva). Indeed the OefjieXiov metaphor is 
particularly common in Philo, as, e.g., in the de vita contempt. 
476 { Se wa-rrep Tiva 6ep.eXt.0v TrpoKaTa/3aXX6p.evoi if/v^rjs). 
This basis (0ep.eX.iov) of Christian instruction is now described ; 
the contents are arranged in three pairs, but, as the middle pair 
are not distinctively Christian ideas (v. 2 ), the writer puts in 

1 Compare the motto which Cromwell is said to have written on his 
pocket-bible, " qui cessat esse melior cessat esse bonus." 


SiSaxV or StSaxTjs. The Oe/xeXiov of instruction consists of 
/xeTavotas . . . ko.1 Trt'crretos (genitives of quality), while SiSa^v, 
which is in apposition to it ("I mean, instruction about"), 
controls the other four genitives. Me-rdvcaa and moris, Paimo-fioi 
and eirideVis x €t P^*') 4wJoTao*s and Kpijia al&viov, are the funda- 
mental truths. McTavota x olito is like p-eTavoetv airo (Ac 8 22 ), and 
warns ewi. deov like wioTeveiv ewi {e.g. Wis 1 2 2 iva dwaAAayeVres rf)s 
Kaictas wicrreuo-w/aev ewi ere', xvpie). These two requirements were 
foremost in the programme of the Christian mission. The other 
side of repentance is described in 9 14 iroo-w //.SAAov to alfxa toZ 
XpiCTTOi) . . . Kadapul rrjv crvve[8r}cri.v rjfxiov oltto vexpa>v epywv eis to 
Xarpeveiv 6eu> £wvti, where the last word indicates that veKpa. epya 
mean the conduct of those who are outside the real life and 
service of God. Practically, therefore, veKpd epya are sins, as the 
Greek fathers assumed; the man who wrote 11 25 (deov . . . 
dp,apri'as) would hardly have hesitated to call them such. He 
has coined this phrase to suggest that such epya have no principle 
of life in them, 2 or that they lead to death. The origin of the 
phrase has not been explained, though Chrysostom and Oecu- 
menius were right in suggesting that the metaphor of 9 14 was 
derived from the contamination incurred by touching a corpse 
(see Nu iQ lf * 31 19 ). Its exact meaning is less clear. The one 
thing that is clear about it is that these epya veKpa were not 
habitual sins of Christians ; they were moral offences from which 
a man had to break away, in order to become a Christian at all. 
They denote not the lifeless, formal ceremonies of Judaism, but 
occupations, interests, and pleasures, which lay within the sphere 
of moral death, where, as a contemporary Christian writer put it 

(Eph 2 1 ), pagans lay veKpol tois wapawTW/Aacriv kcll Tals dp.apnais. 

The phrase might cover Jewish Christians, if there were any 
such in the community to which this homily is addressed, but it is 
a general phrase. Whatever is evil is ve^po'v, for our author, and 
epya veKpa render any Christian warns or Aarpeveiv impossible 
(cp. Expositor, Jan. 19 18, pp. 1-18), because they belong to the 
profane, contaminating sphere of the world. 

In v. 2 8i8axrjf is read, instead of Si&axrjs, by B syr harld and 
the Old Latin, a very small group — yet the reading is probably 

1 According to Philo (de Abrah. 2, 3), next to hope, which is the &pxv 
fierovGlas ayadQ>v, comes 17 iirl a.p.apTavop.e'vois fierdvoia Kal {leXrlwfflS. Only, 
he adds (ibid. 4), repentance is second to TeXeibT-rjs, wcrwep Kal avbaov crufiaTos 
i] irpbs vyielav e£ dadevelas /uera/3o\rj . . . 1) 5' a7r<5 tlvos xp& vov /3e\r/w<rts !8ioi> 
dyadbv ev<pvovs if'vxys e'er* fxrj tois iraibiKois iwi/jievovarjs dXX' afipoTCpois Kal 
avdpbs Hvtios ■ppovr\ iiri^y}Tova-qs evbtov Ka.T6.aTa.0~1v [i/'i>x?)s] Kal T77 (pavTaalq. 

tQ)V K0.\u1V ilT-Tp€XOVaT)S. 

2 Cp. the use of vtKpbs in Epict. iii. 23. 28, ko.1 p-r-v av p.7] Taura ('p.-rroirj 6 
tou <pCKoab(pov \byos, veKpbs 4ctti Kal avrbs Kal \iywv. This passage indicates 
how vtKpbs could pass from the vivid application to persons (Mt 8", Lk 15 s2 , 
cp. Col 2 1S ), into a secondary application to their sphere and conduct. 


original ; the surrounding genitives led to its alteration into 
SiSa^s. However, it makes no difference to the sense, which 
reading is chosen. Even SiSa^s depends on OtfxlXiov as a 
qualifying genitive. But the change of hihayrjv into SiSa^s is 
much more likely than the reverse process. Aioc^/v follows 
fi<nrTiarfxwi> like /<ocr/xos in I P 3' (ivSvaew; Ifiartwy koct/xos). 
Ba-n-Tia-fAoi by itself does not mean specifically Christian baptism 
either in this epistle (9 10 ) or elsewhere (Mk 7 4 ), but ablutions or 
immersions such as the mystery religions and the Jewish cultus 
required for initiates, proselytes, and worshippers in general. 
The singular might mean Christian baptism (as in Col 2 12 ), but 
why does the writer employ the plural here? Not because 
in some primitive Christian circles the catechumen was thrice 
sprinkled or immersed in the name of the Trinity (Didache 7 1 ' 3 ), 
but because ancient religions, such as those familiar to the 
readers, had all manner of purification rites connected with 
water (see on io 22 ). The distinctively Christian uses of water 
had to be grasped by new adherents. That is, at baptism, e.g., 
the catechumen would be specially instructed about the differ- 
ence between this Christian rite, with its symbolic purification 
from sins of which one repented, and (a) the similar rites in 
connexion with Jewish proselytes on their reception into the 
synagogue or with adherents who were initiated into various 
cults, and (b) the ablutions which were required from Christians 
in subsequent worship. The latter practice may be alluded to 
in IO 22 (AeAovcr/xcvot to o-ai/Aa vSan Justin (Apol. i. 62) 
regards these lustrations of the cults as devilish caricatures of 
real baptism : /cat to Xovrpbv 8tj tovto aKovcravTes 01 Scu'/Aoves . . . 
ivTQpyrjcrav ko.1 pavri£eiv eavTOvs tovs €is ra Upa avTwv e7ri/3aivovTas 
Kai irpocrtevcu olvtols yueAAovTas, Aoi/3ds Kai /cvtcras a.7TOTe\oviTa<; 
TtXeov Sk /cat XovecrGat iiriovras irp\v iXdetv iirl ra lepd, ZvOa 
iSpwrai, ivepyovai. The emSe'cns x 6l P<^ 1 ' which often followed 
baptism in primitive days (e.g. Ac 8 ivf - 19 6 ), though it is ignored 
by the Didache and Justin, was supposed to confer the holy 
Spirit (see v. 4 ). Tertullian witnesses to the custom (de baptismo, 
18, de carnis resurrectione, 8), and Cyprian corroborates it (Ep. 
lxxiv. 5, " manus baptizato imponitur ad accipiendum spiritum 
sanctum "). The rite was employed in blessing, in exorcising, 
and at " ordination," afterwards at the reception of penitents 
and heretics ; here it is mentioned in connexion with baptism 
particularly (ERE. vi. 494^). 

The subject is discussed in monographs like A. J. Mason's The Relation 
of Confirmation to Baptism (1891), and J. Behm's Die Handauflegung im 
Urchristenthum ( 1 9 1 1 ). 

The final pair of doctrines is dyaa-rdo-ews f€Kpwk tea! Kpip.aTos 
( 2 u. 15 9 27) aiwiov (as in Ac 24 15 - 25 ). Te is added after djw- 


rao-ceos mechanically (to conform with the preceding re) by K A C 
K L Lat arm S yr hklpesh , just as it is added after fiaTrTio-fAwv by 
harkl. In the rather elliptical style and loose construction of the 
whole sentence, " notwithstanding its graceful rhythmical struc- 
ture," it is possible to see, with Bruce (p. 203), " an oratorical 
device to express a feeling of impatience" with people who need 
to have such principia mentioned. At any rate the writer hastens 
forward. V. 3 is not a parenthesis (" I will do this," i.e. go over 
such elementary truths with you, "if God permits," when I 
reach you, 13 23 ) ; the touto refers to the advance proposed in v. 1 , 
and after TroiTJo-ofiei/ the author adds reverently, " if God permits," 
ednrep eiriTpe'irT) 6 0e6s, almost as a contemporary rhetorician 
might say in a pious aside : edv Se <r*a'C,rj to Scu/aoViov ^.as (Dion. 
Halicarn. De Admir. Vi dicendi in Dem. 58), or Qiuv ^u.Ss 
(jivXaTTovTwv auivels tc koX dvocrous (De Composit. Verborum, 1). 
The papyri show that similar phrases were current in the 
correspondence of the day (cp. Deissmann's Bible Studies, p. 80), 
and Josephus (Ant. xx. n. 2) uses kov to 6elov iirLTpeirfj. 

Trorqo-ofAev (n B K L N I. 2. 5. 6. 33. 69. 88. 216. 218. 221. 226. 242. 
255- 337- 429- 489- 919- 920. 1149- i5 lS - 1739- 1758. 1827. 1867. 2127. 2143. 
Lat sah boh Chrys. ) has been changed into iroirjaufiev by A C D P arm, etc., 
though the latter may have been originally, like <pep&/jLe6a in v. 1 , an ortho- 
graphical variant, and w being frequently confused. 

4 For in the case of people who have been once enlightened, who tasted the 
heavenly Gift, who participated in the holy Spirit, B who tasted the goodness of 
God's word and the powers of Ike world to co7?ie, 6 and then fell away — it is 
impossible to ?nake them repent afresh, since they crucify the Son of God in 
their own persons and hold him tip to obloquy. 7 For " land" which absorbs 
the rain that often falls on it, and bears '■plants" that are useful to those for 
whom it is tilled, receives a blessing from God ; 8 whereas, if it (sc. i] yij) "pro- 
duces thorns and thistles," it is reprobate and on the verge of being cursed — its 
fate is to be burned. 

Vv. 4 " 6 put the reason for touto iroiY)o-ou.ef (v. 3 ), and vv. 7, 8 give 
the reason for doum-roy . . . di/aKamj^eif els neravoiav (vv. 4 ' 6 ). 
'AouVarov ydp ktX. (v. 4 ) ; there are four impossible things in the 
epistle: this and the three noted in vv. 18 io 4 and n 6 . Tous . . . 
cuweos ( 4 - 5a ) is a long description of people who have been 
initiated into Christianity; then comes the tragic icai Trapaireo-- 
ovTas. What makes the latter so fatal is explained in (v. 6 ) 
dyao-TaupoucTas . . . TTapaSeiyfJiaTi^ocTas. Logically irdXii' dm- 
Kcn^eif cis u.eTdi'oiai' ought to come immediately after a.h6varov 
ydp, but the writer delayed the phrase in order to break up the 
sequence of participles. The passage is charged with an austerity 
which shows how seriously the writer took life. Seneca quotes 
(Ep. xxiii. 9-1 1) to Lucilius the saying of Epicurus, that "it is 
irksome always to be starting life over again," and that "they live 
badly who are always beginning to live.'' The reason is: "quia 

VI. 4.] A WARNING 77 

semper illis imperfecta vita est." But our writer takes a much 
more sombre view of the position of his friends. He urges 
them to develop their ideas of Christianity. "You need some 
one to teach you the rudimentary lessons of the faith all over 
again," he had said. "Yes," he now adds, "and in some cases 
that is impossible. Relaying a foundation of repentance, etc. ! 
That cannot be done for deliberate apostates." The implication 
is that his readers are in danger of this sin, as indeed he has 
hinted already (in 3 7 -4 14 ), and that one of the things that is 
weakening them is their religious inability to realize the supreme 
significance of Jesus. To remain as they are is fatal ; it means 
the possibility of a relapse altogether. " Come on," the writer 
bids them, " for if you do not you will fall back, and to fall back 
is to be ruined." The connexion between this passage and the 
foregoing, therefore, is that to rest content with their present 
elementary hold upon Christian truth is to have an inadequate 
grasp of it ; the force of temptation is so strong that this rudi- 
mentary acquaintance with it will not prevent them from falling 
away altogether, and the one thing to ensure their religious 
position is to see the full meaning of what Jesus is and does. 
This meaning he is anxious to impart, not as an extra but as an 
essential. The situation is so serious, he implies, that only 
those who fully realize what Jesus means for forgiveness and 
fellowship will be able to hold out. And once you relapse, he 
argues, once you let go your faith, it is fatal ; people who de- 
liberately abandon their Christian confession of faith are beyond 
recovery. Such a view of apostasy as a heinous offence, which 
destroyed all hope of recovery, is characteristic of ITpos 'E/?paious. 
It was not confined to this writer. That certain persons could 
not repent of their sins was, e.g., an idea admitted in rabbinic 
Judaism. "Over and over again we have the saying : 'For him 
who sins and causes others to sin no repentance is allowed or 
possible' (Aboth v. 26; Sanhedrin, lo-jb). 'He who is wholly 
given up to sin is unable to repent, and there is no forgiveness 
to him for ever' (Midrash Tehillim on Ps 1 ad jin.)." 1 There 
is a partial parallel to this passage in the idea thrown out by 
Philo in de agricultura, 28, as he comments upon Gn 9 20 : 
"Noah began to till the earth." Evidently, says Philo, this 
means that he was merely working at the apx at OI " the subject. 
'Apxq 8 , 6 Tail' iraXatwv Aoyos, rjjxicrv rov 7ravTos, cos av rj/jLicret. 7rpos 
to Te'Aos a<p€(TT7]Kv'ia, ov (jlt) irpo(ryei'Ofj.€vov /cat to ap£acrOai 
TroWaKLS fxeydXa ttoWovs lySAai^ei'. His point is that it 
is dangerous to stop short in any moral endeavour. But our 
author is more rigorous in his outlook. His warning is modified, 
however, (a) It is put in the form of a general statement. 

1 C. G. Montefiore, in Jewish Quarterly Review (1904), p. 225. 


(b) It contains a note of encouragement in v. 7 ; and (c) it is at 
once followed up by an eager hope that the readers will dis- 
appoint their friend and teacher's fear (v. 9 ). In the later church 
this feature of IIpos c E/?paious entered into the ecclesiastical 
question of penance (cp. ERE. ix. 716, and Journal of Theo- 
logical Studies, iv. 321 f.), and seriously affected the vogue of the 
epistle (cp. Introd. p. xx). 

The fourfold description of believers ( 4 - *•) begins with fiira£ 
(j>(im<r0eVTas, where <pa>Tio-#evTas corresponds to Xaftelv ttjv liriy- 
vwo-tv 1-775 a\.7]6eLas (io 26 ), in the general sense of LXX (e.g. 
Ps Il8 130 r) Srj\(ji(Xis t&v Xoyoiv aov tftwriei, kcu crvveril vqiriovs), 
i.e. "enlightened" in the sense of having their eyes opened 
(Eph i 18 ) to the Christian God. Subsequently, earlier even than 
Justin Martyr, the verb, with its noun <pa)Tio-p.os, came to be used 
of baptism specifically (cp. ERE. viii. 54, 55). *A7ra| is pre- 
fixed, in contrast to -rrdX.ii' (v. 6 ) ; once for all men enter Christi- 
anity, it is an experience which, like their own death (a 27 ) and 
the death of Jesus (g 2S ), can never be repeated. In ica\6f yeucra- 
fieVous 0eou pfjjxa (" experienced how good the gospel is ") the con- 
struction resembles that of Herod, vii. 46, where the active voice 
is used with the accusative (6 Se deos yXvxvv yewras tov alwva, 
<p#ovepos iv avT<3 evpio-Kerai e'wv), and the adj. is put first : " the 
deity, who let us taste the sweetness of life (or, that life is 
sweet), is found to be spiteful in so doing." The similar use of 
the middle here as in Pr 29 s6 and Jn 2 9 probably points to the 
same meaning (cp., however, Diat. 2016-2018), i.e., practically 
as if it were on ktX. (cp. Ps 34 s yevaaaOe ko.1 i'Sctc on XP 7 ? " 7 " 05 
6 Kvpios, 1 P 2 3 ), in contrast to the more common construction 
with the genitive (v. 4 2 9 ). The writer uses genitive and accusa- 
tive indifferently, for the sake of literary variety ; and kclXov here 
is the same as kclXov in 5 14 . reuo-apeVous ktX. recalls the parti- 
ality of Philo for this metaphor (e.g. de Abrah. 19; de Somniis, 
i. 26), but indeed it is common (cp. e.g. Jos. Ant. iv. 6. 9, a7ra£ 
to veov yevo-apevov £eviK<Ji)v €#i<xpu>v a7rA7;crru)S airuv eve<popeiTo) 
throughout contemporary Hellenistic Greek as a metaphor for 
experiencing. Probably ycuo-apeVous • ■ • eiroupaiaou, ptToxous 
. . . dyiou, and Ka\6y yeutrapeyous aiwi/09 are three rhetorical 
expressions for the initial experience described in Siml <f>amo-0eV 
Tas. " The heavenly Gift " (1-775 Swpeas r>?s iirovpaviov) may be 
the Christian salvation in general, which is then viewed as the 
impartation of the holy Spirit, and finally as the revelation of the 
higher world which even already is partly realized in the experi- 
ence of faith. Note that (Jximo-Ge'tras is followed by yeuo-apeeous 
kt\., as the light-metaphor is followed by the food-metaphor 
in Philo's (de fuga et invent. 25) remarks upon the manna 
(Ex l6 15- 16 ) : r) Beta o~vvra£is avrrj ttjv opaTiKrjv 4 /v XV v ^WTtJei T€ 


teal ofxov Kal yXvKatvei . . . tous Buj/wi'Tas Kal ireii>unTa<; icako- 
KayaOias l<pr}hvvovcra. Also, that Suydueis Te ueMowTOS aiwi'OS l in- 
cludes the thrilling experiences mentioned in 2 4 . The dramatic 
turn comes in (v. 6 ) Kal TrapaTrcoroVTas. HapairiTTTetv is here used 
in its most sinister sense ; it corresponds to aTroo-Trjvai (3 12 ), and 
indeed both verbs are used in the LXX to translate the same 
term ^>yQ. The usage in Wis 6 9 (/at) TrapaTria-qTi) 12 2 (tovs 
7ra/3a7ri7TTcrovTas) paves the way for this sense of a deliberate 
renunciation of the Christian God, which is equivalent to tKovo-ttus 
afxapraveiv in io 26 . The sin against the holy Spirit, which Jesus 
regarded as unpardonable, the mysterious afxapria irpbs ddvarov 
of 1 Jn 5 16 , and this sin of apostasy, are on the same level. The 
writer never hints at what his friends might relapse into. 
Anything that ignored Christ was to him hopeless. 

'ASuVaTOK (sc. Ictti) is now (v. 6 ) taken up in deaKcui/i£eu' (for 
which Paul prefers the form avaKaivovv), a LXX term (e.g. Ps 
5 1 12 ) which is actually used for the Christian start in life by 
Barnabas (6 11 dva/ccuvuras r/ytids eV rrj acpecrei. roiv afxapTiwr), and 
naturally of the divine action. ndXiK is prefixed for emphasis, 
as in Isokr. Areopag. 3, tt}s l^pas tt]s 77-pos tov /3a<riA.ea iraXiv 

There have been various, vain efforts to explain the apparent harshness of 
the statement. Erasmus took advvarov (like d=difficile) as "difficult"; 
Grotius said it was impossible " per legem Mosis" ; others take avaKaivl^eiv 
to mean " keep on renewing," while some, like Schoettgen, Bengel, and 
Wickham, fall back on the old view that while men could not, God might 
effect it. But even the last-named idea is out of the question. If the writer 
thought of any subject to ivaKawLfreiv, it was probably a Christian Si8d<XKa\ot 
like himself ; but the efforts of such a Christian are assumed to be the channel 
of the divine power, and no renewal could take place without God. There 
is not the faintest suggestion that a second repentance might be produced by 
God when human effort failed. The tenor of passages like io 28 '- and 12" 
tells finally against this modification of the language. A similarly ominous 
tone is heard in Philo's comment on Nu 30 10 in quod deter, pot. insid. 40 : 
(p-fjffofiev didvoiav . . . iK^e^Xijudai Kal XVP av Qeov, tjtis r) yopAs Oeias ov 
iraped^aro r) TrapaSe^a/x^vij eKovalws aVdis i^-qix^Kuae ... 7; 5' #7ra£ diafevx- 
delaa Kal dioiKurdelcra <I>s &<rirovdos fifxP 1 T °u Tavrbs aiQvos iKTerdi-evrai, els rbv 
dpxalov oIkov iiravekdeiv adwarovcra. 

The reason why a second repentance is impossible is given 
in dyaaTaupourras • • • irapaSeiYuaTi^ocTas, where avaaTavpovvras 
is used instead of aravpovvras, for the sake of assonance (after 
dvaKaivi£eiv), but with the same meaning. 'Avao-Taupow simply 
means "to crucify," as, e.g., in Plato's Gorgias, 28 (tovs avrov i-n-ihwv 

1 Tertullian's translation, " occidente iam aevo " (de Pudicitia, 20) shows 
that his Greek text had omitted a line by accident : 




i.e. Svv[&neis re fii\\]ovros alQvos. 


7ratSas T€ Kal yvvalKa to ccr^aTof avuaTavpwOfj i] Ka.TonriTTU>8fj) ; 
Tbucyd. i. IIO ('Impos . . . irpoSocria A.?7<p#eis av^crravpoidrj) ; 
JosepllUS (Ant. XI. 6. IO, ava<TTavpw<Tai tov MapSoxouov), etc. The 
dva = sursum, not rursum, though the Greek fathers {e.g. Chrys. 
Tt Si iariv dvaoravpowras ; aivwOev 7raXiv o-TavpouvTas), and several 
of the versions (e.g. vg "rursum crucifigentes"), took it in the sense 
of re-crucify. c EauT<ns : it is their crucifixion of Jesus. " The 
thought is that of wilfulness rather than of detriment " (Vaughan). 

In the story of Jesus and Peter at Rome, which Origen mentions as part 
of the Acts of Paul {in Joh. xx. 12), the phrase, "to be crucified over again " 
occurs in a different sense [Texte u. Unters. xxx. 3, pp. 271-272). Kal 6 
Kiipios avrQ elwev' eiatpxop-ai eh Tr}v"Pu>fi7]v crTavpwdr]vai. Kai 6 Wtrpos elirev 
avrip' Ki'»pte, ttclXiv aravpovcrai ; elirev avri^' val, Yiirpe, iraXiv 
Origen, quoting this as "Avudev fitXXw aravpovaOai, holds that such is the 
meaning of avacrravpovv in He 6 5 . 

The meaning of the vivid phrase is that they put Jesus out 
of their life, they break off all connexion with him ; he is dead to 
them. This is the decisive force of <TTavpova6ai in Gal 6 14 . The 
writer adds an equally vivid touch in Kal TrapaSeiyixaTi^ocTas 
( = T ov vidv Oeov KaTaTrarrj(ra<i kt\., io 29 ) — as if he is not worth 
their loyalty ! Their repudiation of him proclaims to the world 
that they consider him useless, and that the best thing they can 
do for themselves is to put him out of their life. napa&eiy- 
lAa-n^eie is used in its Hellenistic sense, which is represented by 
Tidivai eis 7rapdS£<.y//.a in the LXX (Nah 3 6 ). Possibly the term 
was already associated with impaling (cp. Nu 25* 7rapaSetyp.dTicrov 
avrovs Kvpiu)), 1 but our author does not use it in the LXX sense 
of " make an example of" (by punishing) ; the idea is of exposing 
to contemptuous ignominy, in public (as in Mt i 19 ). 

The Bithynians who had renounced Christianity proved to Pliny their 
desertion by maligning Christ — one of the things which, as he observed, no 
real Christian would do ("quorum nihil posse cogi dicuntur qui sunt re vera 
Christiani "). " Omnes . . . Christi male dixerunt." When the proconsul 
urges Polykarp to abandon Christianity, he tells the bishop, Xoidoprjaov rbv 
Xpurrdv {Mart. Polyk. ix. 3). The language of ripos EPpaioi/s is echoed in 
the saying of Jesus quoted in Apost. Const, vi. 18 : ofiroi eiai wepl &sv Kal 6 
Kijpios WLKpws Kal cLTTOTdpLivs direcprjuaro X^ytav 6ti elal \pev86xpMTTOi Kal \pev5odi- 
ddcTKaXoi, ol (3\a<T(priiJ.r]<TavTes rb irvevfia rfjs x° L P tT0S Kai airoTrrvcravTes tt)v nap 
avrov dupeav fierd rr)v xdpiv, oh ovk a<pedr]<TeTai oihe iv ri2 aiibvi tovti$ oxjre iv 
rip fxiXXovri. In Sir 31 30 {(iairTi'sdixevos airb veKpov Kal wdXiv dirrbfievos avrov, 
tI dxpeXyaev tlj Xovrpy avrov ;) the allusion is to the taboo-law of Nu it) 11, 12 ; 
the parallel is verbal rather than real. But there is a true parallel in 
Mongolian Buddhism, which ranks five sins as certain "to be followed by a 
hell of intense sufferings, and that without cessation . . . patricide, matricide, 
killing a Doctor of Divinity {i.e. a lama), bleeding Buddha, sowing hatred 
among priests. . . . Drawing blood from the body of Buddha is a figurative 
expression, after the manner of He 6 6 " (J. Gilmour, Among the Mongols, 
pp. 233, 234). 

1 In alluding to the gibbeting law of Dt 2i-' 2f -, Josephus {Bell. Jud. iv. 
5. 2) speaks of dvacrTai'poPj'. 


In the little illustration (vv. 7 - 8 ), which corresponds to what Jesus 
might have put in the form of a parable, there are reminiscences 
of the language about God's curse upon the ground (Gn 3 17 - 18 ) : 
iTTiKardpaTos r) yrj . . . a/cdi 0as ko! TpifioAovs dvareAet, and also of 
the words in Gn i 12 ko.1 ZiyveyKev r) yrj fioTavrjv x°P T0V > though the 

writer uses eKcpepetv for avareWeiv, and prefers tlkt€lv to (Kcpepeiv 

(in v. 7 ). The image of a plot or field is mentioned by Quintilian 
{Instit. Orat. v. n. 24) as a common instance of the Trapa(3o\rj : 
"ut, si animum dicas excolendum, similitudine utaris terrae quae 
neglecta spinas ac dumos, culta fructus creat." The best Greek 
instance is in Euripides {Hecuba, 592 f. : ovkow Seivov, ei yrj pikv 
Kaxr) I -rvxovcra Katpov Oto&ev ev ora^uv <pipu, \ XPV°" r V & ap-apTova 
wv ^pewi' avTTjV tvx<uv \ kolkov oYSwcri Kapirov ktX.). rUouaa of land, 
as, e.g., in EX II 11 yrj ... Ik tov vctov toi) ovpavov ttUto.1 v8wp : 
Is 55 10f- etc. As euOe-ros generally takes ek with the accusative, it 
is possible that tiktouo-o, was meant to go with e/mvois. rewpyeiTai, 
of land being worked or cultivated, is a common term in the papyri 
{e.g. Syll. 429 s to. Tt xwpta d yewpyeu-ai) as well as in the LXX. 

(a) Origen's homiletical comment {Philocalia, xxi. 9) is, to. yivb)j.tva. inrb tov 
deov Tfpaa-Tia oiovel ver6s iariv' at 8e irpoaipkcrfis at didipopoi oiovel i] yeyeupy-q- 
fievrj yrj iarl /cat 77 r)jj.e\r]pLevri, puy rrj <puo~ei u/s yr) rvyxdvovcra — an idea similar 
to that of Jerome {tractatus de psalmo xcvi., Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3. 90 : 
' ' apostolorum epistolae nostrae pluviae sunt spiritales. Quid enim dicit Paulus 
in epistola ad Hebraeos ? Terra enim saepe venientem super se bibens imbrem, 
et reliqua ")• {b) The Mishna directs that at the repetition of the second of the 
Eighteen Blessings the worshipper should think of the heavy rain and pray for 
it at the ninth Blessing (Berachoth, 5 1 ), evidently because the second declares, 
" Blessed art thou, O Lord, who restorest the dead " (rain quickening the earth), 
and the ninth runs, "Bless to us, O Lord our God, this year and grant us a 
rich harvest and bring a blessing on our land." Also, " on the occasion of the 
rains and good news, one says, Blessed be He who is good and does good " 
(Berachoth, 9' 2 ). Cp. Marcus Aurelius, v. 7, evxv 'Adrjvalwv vcxov, v<rov, w <pl\e 
Zed, Kara tt)s dpovpas ttjs 'Adrjvaluv /cat tQiv wedluiv. 

MeTaXajxPaVci ( = participate in) is not a LXX term, but occurs 
in this sense in Wis 18 9 etc. ; euXoyias occurs again in 12 17 (of Esau 
the apostate missing his euXoyia), and there is a subtle suggestion 
here, that those aione who make use of their divine privileges are 
rewarded. What the writer has in mind is brought out in v. 10 ; 
that he was thinking of the Esau-story here is shown by the 
reminiscence of ay pov ov rjiXoyrjaev Kvpios (Gn 2 7 27 ). 

The reverse side of the picture is now shown (v. 8 ). 

Commenting on Gn 3 18 Philo fancifully plays on the derivation of the word 
Tpi(3o\os (like " trefoil ") : iKaarov de tQiv iraduiv TpLJ36\ia etp-qicev, ewetdr) rpirrd 
ioTiv, avrb re Kal rb iroLT)TiKov kclI rb 4k tovtcov dirorkXeo-fia {leg. alleg. 3 s9 ). 
He also compares the eradication of evil desires in the soul to a gardener or 
farmer burning down weeds {de Agric. 4, Trajr' 4kko\I/w, 4kt€/xQ . . . /cat ^7rt- 
/cai'trto /cat ras pt'fas avrwv e<putd &XP 1 T & v vardrwv rrjs yrjs <f>\oybs piirr)v) ; but 
in our epistle, as in Jn 15 6 , the burning is a final doom, not a process of severe 



'A8oKip.os is used as in i Co g 27 ; the moral sense breaks 
through, as in the next clause, where the meaning of els KaG<ne 
may be illustrated by Dt 29 22 and by Philo's more elaborate 
description of the thunderstorm which destroyed Sodom (de Abrah. 
2j); God, he says, showered a blast oix vSaros d\Xd 7rupo's upon 
the city and its fields, by way of punishment, and everything was 
consumed, €7T£i Se to. iv <pavepu> ko.1 V7rep yrj<; diravra KaTavd\w<rev 
■fj <f>\.6tj, 77817 /cat ttjv yrjv avTr]v !kcu€ . . . wrkp tov 7x778' avdi<; 
7TOTC Kapirbv iveyKeiv rj xXorjcpoprjaai to 7rapa7rav &ovr)6rjvai.. The 

metaphor otherwise is inexact, for the reference cannot be to the 
burning of a field in order to eradicate weeds ; our author is 
thinking of final punishment ( = Kpi/xaTos aluvLov, 6 2 ), which he 
associates as usual with fire (io 26 - 27 12 29 ). The moral applica- 
tion thus impinges on the figurative sketch. The words Kcn-dpas 
Ayyus actually occur in Aristides (Oral, in Rom. 370: to p.h> 
7rpo^wpeiv aurots a i/3ovX.ovTO, dpLrj^avov kcu KaTapas eyyus). 1 There 
is no thought of mildness in the term cyyvs, it being used, as in 
8 13 , of imminent doom, which is only a matter of time. Mean- 
while there is the ckSc^ (io 27 ). 

Later on, this conception of unpardonable sins led to the whole 
system of penance, which really starts from the discussion by 
Hermas in the second century. But for our author the unpardon- 
able sin is apostasy, and his view is that of a missionary. Modern 
analogies are not awanting. Thus, in Dr. G. Warneck's book, 
The Living Forces of the Gospel (p. 248), we read that " the Battak 
Christians would have even serious transgressions forgiven ; but 
if a Christian should again sacrifice to ancestors or have anything 
to do with magic, no earnest Christian will speak in his favour ; 
he is regarded as one who has fallen back into heathenism, and 
therefore as lost." 

9 Though I say this, beloved, I feel sure you will take the better" 1 course 
that means salvation. 10 God is not unfair ; he will not forget what you have 
done, or the love you have shown for his sake in ministering, as you still do, to 
the saints. n It is my heart's desire that each of you would prove equally keen 
upon realizing your full (ir\-qpo(popLa.v, IO 22 ) hope io the very end, 12 so that 
instead of being slack you may imitate those who inherit the promises by their 
steadfast faith. 

The ground for his confident hope about his "dear friends" 
(Tyndale, v. 9 ) lies in the fact that they are really fruitful (v. 7 ) in 
what is the saving quality of a Christian community, viz. brotherly 
love (v. 10 ). The God who blesses a faithful life (v. 7 ) will be sure 
to reward them for that ; stern though he may be, in punishing 
the disloyal, he never overlooks good service. Only (vv. 11 - 12 ), 

1 Cp. Eurip. Hippolytus, 1070: alai, wpbs fjirap' Saicpvuv iyyvs r68e. 

2 For some reason the softer linguistic form updocrova. is used here, as at 
IO* 4 , in preference to KpeirTova.. 


the writer adds, put as much heart and soul into your realization 
of what Christianity means as you are putting into your brotherl) 
love ; by thus taking the better course, you are sure of God's 
blessing. As ayaw^roi indicates (the only time he uses it), the 
writer's affection leads him to hope for the best; he is deeply 
concerned about the condition of his friends, but he does not 
believe their case is desperate (v. 4 ). He has good hopes of them, 
and he wishes to encourage them by assuring them that he still 
believes in them. We may compare the remarks of Seneca to 
Lucilius, Ep. xxix. 3, about a mutual friend, Marcellinus, about 
whom both of them were anxious. Seneca says he has not yet 
lost hope of Marcellinus. For wisdom or philosophy "is an art ; 
let it aim at some definite object, choosing those who will make 
progress (profecturos) and withdrawing from those of whom it 
despairs — yet not abandoning them quickly, rather trying drastic 
remedies when everything seems hopeless." Elsewhere, he 
encourages Lucilius himself by assuring him of his friend's 
confidence and hope (Ep xxxii. 2 : "habeo quidem fiduciam non 
posse te detorqueri mansurumque in proposito "), and, in con- 
nexion with another case, observes that he will not be deterred 
from attempting to reform certain people (Ep. xxv. 2) : "I would 
rather lack success than lack faith." 

In Kal (epexegetic) exdueya (sc. TrpdyfxaTa) awTTjpias, e^o/xeva, 
thus employed, is a common Greek phrase (cp. e.g. Marc. 
Aurel. i. 6, dcra TOiavra tt?9 EAA^yiK?}? aywyfjs e^o'/Aeva : Musonius 
(ed. Hense), xi., ^reiv 7rai8etas ixojjava (v. I. e^d/xevov) : Philo, de 
Agric. 22, to. Se Kaprcpias Kal o-uxfrpoavvrj's . . . i)(6fjLeva) for what 
has a bearing upon, or is connected with ; here, for what pertains 
to and therefore promotes crtoT^pia (the opposite of Kardpa 
and Kaucris). The reason for this confidence, with which he 
seeks to hearten his readers, lies in their good record of practical 
service (tov epyov vp.wv ktA.) which God is far too just to ignore. 
After all, they had some fruits as well as roots of Christianity 
(v. 10 ). 'Em\a6eo-0cu is an infinitive of conceived result (Burton's 
Moods and Tenses, 371^; Blass, § 391. 4), instead of Iva c. subj., 
as, e.g., in 1 Jn i 9 , or ware c. infinitive; cp. Xen. Cyrop. iv. 1. 20, 
StKaios et'QzaQ ai?- The text of too epyou uuwy Kal tt)s 
dydTrTjs was soon harmonized with that of 1 Th i 3 by the in- 
sertion of Tot) kottov after Kal (so D c K L 69*. 256. 263. 161 1*. 
2005. 2127 boh Theodoret, etc.). The relative r\v after dya^s 
has been attracted into the genitive t}s (as in 9 20 ). One practi- 
cal form of this SiaKomy is mentioned in io 33 - 34 . Here els 
to oyoua auTou goes closely with SiaKo^aayTes ktA., as well as 
with eVeSei'laade, in the sense of " for his sake." In Pirke Aboth, 

1 See Dolon's remark in the Rhesus of Euripides (161, 162) : ovkovv woveb 
flip XPV> fovovvTo. 5' d^tov nuxdbv (pipeadai.. 


2 16 , R. Jose's saying is quoted, "Let all thy works be done for 
the sake of heaven " (literally Qvb, i.e. eis 6vop.a, as here and in 

Ign. Rom. 9 3 17 aydwrj tu)V iKK\r)criwv t&v 8e£ap.ei>u}v pe €i? ovofxa 
"[rjaov XpioTou). Toes dyiois, the only place (except 13 24 ) where 
the writer uses this common term for "fellow-Christians"; God 
will never be so unjust as to overlook kindness shown to " his 

The personal affection of the writer comes out not only in 
the dyaiTT]Toi of v. 9 , but again (v. 11 ) in the deep eTriOujaoCfxec, a 
term charged with intense yearning (as Chrysostom says, 7raTpi/«7s 
^lAoo-Topyids), and in the individualizing eKa<nw (cp. 3 12, 13 ). He 
is urgent that they should display rr)\> aurr\v <nrou8r]i/ with regard 
to their Christian eX-iris as they display in the sphere of their 
Christian dyd-mr]. This does not mean that he wishes them to be 
more concerned about saving their own souls or about heaven 
than about their duties of brotherly love ; his point is that the 
higher knowledge which he presses upon their minds is the one 
security for a Christian life at all. Just as Paul cannot assume 
that the warm mutual affection of the Thessalonian Christians 
implied a strict social morality (see below on 13 4 ), or that the 
same quality in the Philippian Christians implied moral dis- 
crimination (Ph i 9 ), so our author pleads with his friends to 
complete their brotherly love by a mature grasp of what their 
faith implied. He reiterates later on the need of <£iA.aSeA</x'a 
(13 1 ), and he is careful to show how it is inspired by the very 
devotion to Christ for which he pleads (io 19 " 24 ). nXrjpo^opia (not 
a LXX term) here is less subjective than in io 22 , where it denotes 
the complete assurance which comes from a realization of all 
that is involved in some object. Here it is the latter sense of 
fulness, scope and depth in their — IX-xl?. 1 This is part and 
parcel of the TeA«6V?/s to which he is summoning them to 
advance (6 1 ). The result of this grasp of what is involved in 
their faith will be (v. 12 ) a vigorous constancy, without which even 
a kindly, unselfish spirit is inadequate. For €c8eiKkuo-0cu o-n-ouSrji' 
compare Herodian's remark that the soldiers of Severus in a.d. 
193 7racmv eveSeiKvuvro irpoOvp-iav /ecu o-irovorjv (ii. IO. 19), Magn. 
53 61 (iii. B.C.), airo&ti^Lv iroiovfAtvos t^s 7rept to. fiiyiara cnrov&rjs, 
and Syll. 342 41 (i. B.C.) ttjv p-eyiar-qv evSeiKwrai cr7rouS?/v eis rqv 
v-n-ep ttJs 7raT^tSo5 (TinT-qpiav. The Greeks used the verb as we use 
"display," in speaking of some inward quality. This ardour 
has to be kept up dxpi t^Xous (cp. pseudo-Musonius, Epp. 1, in 
Hercher's Epistolog. Graeci, 401 f. : Tr/povvTas Se tjv cloven vvv 
TTpoOao-Lv axpi tAous <f>i\ocro(pf}<Tai) ; it is the sustained interest 
in essential Christian truth which issues practically in fiaKpoOupia 
(v. 12 ), or in the confident attitude of hope (3 6 - 14 ). 

1 For i\wL8os, wiarews is read in W 1S67. 

VI. 11, 12.] EXAMPLES OF FAITH 85 

Aristotle, in Rhet. ii. 19. 5, argues that o5 77 dpxv dvvarai yevtadai, Kal 
rb tAos' oi'bkv yap ylyverai ovS' &px^ai yiyvecrdai tuiv aSvv&TWV, a paradox 
which really means that " if you want to know whether the end of any course 
of action, plan, scheme, or indeed of anything — is possible, you must look to 
the beginning : beginning implies end : if it can be begun, it can also be 
brought to an end " (Cope). 

In v. 12 the appeal is rounded off with Xva at) ywOpoi ycVrjaOc, 
that you may not prove remiss (repeating vwOpoi from 5 11 , but 
in a slightly different sense : they are to be alert not simply to 
understand, but to act upon the solid truths of their faith), 
fiip.T]Tal 8e ktA. Hitherto he has only mentioned people who 
were a warning ; now he encourages them by pointing out that 
they had predecessors in the line of loyalty. This incentive is 
left over for the time being ; the writer returns to it in his 
panegyric upon faith in chapter 11. Meanwhile he is content 
to emphasize the steadfast faith (7ruxTea)s Kal p.aKpo6vp.ia<;, a 
hendiadys) that characterizes this loyalty. MaKpo0up.ia means 
here (as in Ja 5 7f -) the tenacity with which faith holds out. 
Compare Menander's couplet (Kock's Com. Attic. Fragm. 549), 

avOpwrros gjv fJL7]?>eTroT€ tt)v aXviriav \ cutou Ttapa. 6eu)v, aXXa Tr/v 
fi.aKpoBvp.iav, and Test. Jos. 2" /*eya cpa.pp.aKov icniv rj p.aKpo6vp.ia \ 
Kal iroXXa. ayada. Si'Swcriv 17 virop.ovrj. But this aspect of 7TiOTis IS 

not brought forward till io 85f -, after the discussion of the priest- 
hood and sacrifice of Christ. In kXtjpovououctwi' T<is e-jrayyeXias 
the writer implies that hope is invariably sustained by a promise 
or promises. He has already mentioned fj inayyeXia (4 1 ). 
KXT/povo/xetv Tas ZirayyeXias can hardly mean "get a promise of 
something " ; as the appended 81& moreus Kal p.aKpo9uu£as sug- 
gests, it denotes " coming into possession of what is promised." 
This is proved by the equivalent e-rreTuxe t^s c-rraYYeXias in v. 15 . 

Taking Abraham as the first or as a typical instance of steadfast 
faith in God's promises, the writer now (vv. 13-19 ) lays stress not upon 
the human quality, but upon the divine basis for this undaunted 
reliance. Constancy means an effort. But it is evoked by a 
divine revelation ; what stirs and sustains it is a word of God. 
From the first the supreme Promise of God has been guaranteed 
by him to men so securely that there need be no uncertainty or 
hesitation in committing oneself to this Hope. The paragraph 
carries on the thought of vv. 11 - 12 ; at the end, by a dexterous turn, 
the writer regains the line of argument which he had dropped 
when he turned aside to incite and reprove his readers (5 llf -)- 

13 For in making a promise to Abraham God " swore by himself" {since hi 
could swear by none greater), 14 " / will indeed bless you and multiply you." 
16 Thus it was {i.e. thanks to the divine Oath) that Abraham by his steadfast- 
ness obtained (so 1 1 33 ) what he had been promised. 16 For as Y men swear by 

1 To make the connexion clear, some inferior texts (C D c K L 6. 33. 104. 
1 610, etc.) add y-tv. 


a greater than themselves, and as an oath means to them a guarantee that ends 
any dispute, ll God, in his desire to afford the heirs of the Promise a special 
proof of the solid character of his purpose, interposed with an oath ; 18 so that 
by these two solid facts (the Promise and the Oath), where it is itnpossible for 
God to be false, we refugees might have strong encouragement (TrapdKXtjcriv, see 
on I2 5 ) to seize the hope set before us, 19 anchoring the soul to it safe and sure, 
as it " enters the inner" Presence " behind the veil." 

As usual, he likes to give a biblical proof or illustration 
(vv. 13 - 14 ), God's famous promise to Abraham, but the main point 
in it is that God ratified the promise with an oath. 

Our author takes the OT references to God's oath quite naively. Others 
had felt a difficulty, as is shown by Philo's treatise de Abrahatno (46) : ' ' God, 
enamoured of this man [i.e. Abraham], for his faith (ttLo-tlv) in him, gives him 
in return a pledge (irlffriv), guaranteeing by an oath (ttjv di 8pKov fiefialucnv) 
the gifts he had promised ... for he says, ' I swear by myself (Gn 22 16 ) — 
and with him a word is an oath— for the sake of confirming his mind more 
steadfastly and immovably than ever before." But the references to God's 
oaths were a perplexity to Philo ; his mystical mind was embarrassed by their 
realism. In de sacrif Abelis et Caini (28, 29) he returns to the subject. 
Hosts of people, he admits, regard the literal sense of these OT words as 
inconsistent with God's character, since an oath implies {fxaprvpla Beov irepl 
■n-pa.yfj.aTOi afupurfiriTovntvov) God giving evidence in a disputed matter ; 
whereas dei£ ovSev dbrfKov ovdt dixcpi.o-pTiToviJ.evov, God's mere word ought to 
be enough : 6 5e debs /cat Xtyuv ino-rds dcriv, Sio-re /cat roiis \6yovs aiirov 
/3e/3at6Ti77-os PveKa fir/div SpKwv 5ta<p^peti\ He inclines to regard the OT 
references to God's oaths as a condescension of the sacred writer to dull 
minds rather than as a condescension upon God's part. In Leg. Allegor. iii. 72 
he quotes this very passage (Gn 22 16, 17 ), adding : eS /cat rb #p/cy jSe^atwcrat 
tt)v virbaxeo-w /cat 6'p/cy 6 'eon petrel' bp$s yap Srt oi lead irtpov bixvvei debs, 
ovdev yap avrov Kpelrrov, d\\d Kad' eavrov, 6's iffri tt&vtuv aptaros. But he 
feels bound to explain it. Some of his contemporaries had begun to take 
exception to such representations of God, on the ground that God's word 
required no formal confirmation — it confirmed itself by being fulfilled — and 
that it was absurd \8.toitov) to speak of God swearing by himself, in order to 
bear testimony to himself. 1 Philo {ibid. 73) attempts to meet this objection 
by urging that only God can bear testimony to himself, since no one else 
knows the divine nature truly ; consequently it is appropriate for him to add 
confirmation to his word, although the latter by itself is amply deserving of 
belief. In Berachoth, 32. 1 (on Ex 32 13 ), it is asked, " What means 13? R. 
Eleazar answered: 'Thus saith Moses to God (Blessed be He!), 'Lord of 
all the world, hadst thou sworn by heaven and earth, I would say, even as 
heaven and earth shall perish, so too thine oath shall perish. But now thou 
hast sworn by thy Great Name, which lives and lasts for ever and ever ; so 
shall thine oath also last for ever and ever.' " 

Etxe (v. 13 ) with infin. = iSvvaro as usual, "flfioo-ei'. . . . ei 
fiTjc . . . euXoyrjo-u) Both the LXX (Thackeray, pp. 83, 84) and the 
papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 205 f.) show that e* fir/v after 
6/jii'veiv in oaths is common as an asseveration ; in some cases, 
as here, the classical form rj pr/v, from which et fi-qv arose by 
itacism, is textually possible. The quotation (v. 14 ) is from the 
promise made to Abraham after the sacrifice of Isaac (Gn 2 2 16 - 17 ): 
holt i/j.avTov w/JLoaa . . . ei fxi)v tvkoywv euAoyr/cru) <re, /cat irAij- 
1 This is the point raised in Jn 8 13f - 

VI. 15-17.] THE OATH OF GOD 8; 

Ovvwv ttXtjOwQ) to o-rep/m crov. The practical religious value of 
God's promise being thus (v. 15 ) confirmed is now brought out for 
the present generation (vv. 16f - — another long sentence). Kara 
toG p,ei£oko$, i.e. by God. Which, Philo argues, is irreverent : 
dcr€/?ets av vopucrOeiev ol <pdo-KOVTe<; ofivvvai Kara deov (-Leg. Allegor. 
iii. 73), since only swearing by the Name of God is permissible (cp. 
Dt 6 13 ). But our author has no such scruples (see above). And 
he is quite unconscious of any objection to oaths, such as 
some early Christian teachers felt (e.g. Ja 5 ]2 ) ; he speaks of the 
practice of taking oaths without any scruples. " Hie locus . . . 
docet aliquem inter Christianos jurisjurandi usum esse legiti- 
mum . . . porro non dicit olim fuisse in usu, sed adhuc vigere 
pronuntiat " (Calvin). 'AiriXoyias, dispute or quarrel (the derived 
sense in 7 7 x^P^ 5 Tdo-^s dvTiAoyia?, there is no disputing). Els 
Pe(3at<T(oai^ only occurs once in the LXX (Lv 25 s3 ), but is a 
current phrase in the papyri (cp. Deissmann's Bible Studies, 
163 f.) for " by way of guarantee " ; it is opposed to €is d^eV^o-iv, 
and used here as in Wis 6 19 7rpoo"OYj7 8* vopaav /?£/3atwcris d<p6ap- 
a-tas. In Philo (see on v. 13 ) it is the oath which is guaranteed ; 
here the oath guarantees. The general idea of v. 17 is that of 
OGIS. (ii. B.C.), oVcos av eis tov airavTa ^povov anivrjTa Kai dp.«Ta- 
6era peyrp rd re 7rpos tov deov Tipia Kal rd 7rpos tov AOr/vaiov 
cpiXdvdpwTra. *Ev » ( = Sto, Theophylact), such being the case. 
riepio-aoTcpoK, which goes with emSellcu, is illustrated by what Philo 
says in de Abrahamo, 46 (see above) : "abundantius quam sine 
juramento factum videretur" (Bengel). It is an equivalent 
for Trepicro-oTepws, which, indeed, B reads here. 'EmSetlcu (cp. 
Elephantine-Papyri [1907] 1 7 (iv. B.C.) eTrtSetfdrco 8e 'HpaKActS^s 
on dv iyKaXrji A^/z^Tpiai ei'avTiov dvSpdv rpiwv) : the verb, which 
is only once used of God in the LXX (Is 37 s6 vvv Se i-n-eSe^a 
i$epr)fxwo-a.i Wvq ktA.), means here "to afford proof of." The 
writer uses the general plural, tois K\r]po»'6p.ots rf]s i-nayyeklas, 1 
instead of the singular " Abraham," since the Promise in its 
mystical sense applied to the entire People, who had faith 
like that of Abraham. The reference is not specifically to 
Isaac and Jacob, although these are called his o-uyKXTipocopoi in 
1 1 9 . In t6 dp.€Td0€TOK ttjs |3ou\r]s our author evidently chooses 
fiovXrjs for the sake of the assonance with PouXoperos. 'ApeTd- 
fle-ros is a synonym for d/ctVT/Tos (cp. above on v. 17 and 
Schol. on Soph. Antig. 1027), and, as the papyri show, 
had a frequent connexion with wills in the sense of " irrevoc- 
able." Here, in connexion with ftovXrjs, it implies final 
determination (cp. 3 Mac 5 U - 12 ); the purpose had a fixed 

1 Eusehius once {Dem. iv. 15. 40) omits ttjs e7rayye'\ia.s, and once {ibid. 
v. 3. 21) reads ttjs pa<n\tlas, either accidentally or with a recollection of 
Ja2 5 . 


character or solidity about it. The verb i^eo-ireuo-ev (" inter- 
vened ") does not occur in the LXX, and is here used intransi- 
tively, instead of, as usual (cp. e.g. Dion. Halic. Ant. ix. 59. 5 ; 
OGIS. 43 7 76 etc.), with some accusative like crw^xas. In Jos. 
Ant. vii. 8. 5 it is used intransitively, but in the sense of " inter- 
ceding " (jreio-Oels 8' 6 'Ioja/3os kcu rrjv avdyKrjv olvtov KaroiKTeipas 

ifxto-LTevcre Trpbs tov /3acriXea). The oath is almost certainly that 
just mentioned. Less probable is the interpretation (Delitzsch, 
Hofmann, M. Stuart, von Soden, Peake, Seeberg, Wickham) 
which regards the oath referred to in vv. 16f * as the oath in the 
writer's favourite psalm, no 4 : 

w/jLocrev Kupios kcu ov iA€Ta/x€\r]6rjcreTai 

%v el tepeus cis tov al£>va. kcito, ryjv rd^tv Me\)(icre8eK. 

This oath does refer to the priesthood of Jesus, which the writer 
is about to re-introduce (in v. 20 ) ; but it is not a thought which 
is brought forward till 7 20 - 21 - 28 ; and the second line of the 
couplet has been already quoted (5 6 ) without any allusion to the 

In v. 18 KaTCKJjeu'yeii' and tkis are connected, but not as in 
Wis 14 6 (Noah = 17 e\iri<; tov Koafxov eirl cr^cStas, Kara^vyovaa). 
Here, as cXms means what is hoped for, i.e. the object of expecta- 
tion, "the only thought is that we are moored to an immoveable 
object" (A. B. Davidson). The details of the anchor-metaphor 
are not to be pressed (v. 19 ); the writer simply argues that 
we are meant to fix ourselves to what has been fixed for us by 
God and in God. To change the metaphor, our hope roots 
itself in the eternal order. What we hope for is unseen, being 
out of sight, but it is secure and real, and we can grasp it by 

(a) Philo {Quaest. in Exod. 22 20 ) ascribes the survival and success of the 
Israelites in Egypt 81a ttjv £irl rbv aoiTTJpa. Oebv KaTa<pvyrji> , 8s £% airopuiv nai 
afxrixo-vwv iiriir£fj.\pas tt)v ebepytnv Svvafiiv ippvaaro rovs LK^ras. (b) t6v is 
inserted in v. 18 before 6eov (by N* A C P 33. 1245. 1739. 1827. 2005 Ath. 
Chrys.), probably to harmonize with 6 6e6% in v. 17 (where 1912 omits 6). But 
6e6v ("one who is God ") is quite apposite. 

napdKXrjo-ii' goes with Kpa.TTJ<rai (aor. = " seize," rather than 
" hold fast to," like Kparelv in 4 14 ), and 01 KctTa^uyoVTes stands by 
itself, though there is no need to conjecture 01 Kara cpvyyv cWes = 
in our flight (so J. J. Reiske, etc.). Is not eternal life, Philo 
asks, rj 7rpo9 to ov Karafyvyr) (de fuga, 15)? In ttjs TrpoK€i[Jt,eVr|s 
eXiuSos, TrpoKeifjievrjs must have the same sense as in 12 2 ; the 
colloquial sense of "aforesaid," which is common in the papyri 
(e.g. OP. 1275 25 cis rrjv TrpoKifxevrjv KUifX7]v), would be flat. 
'Ao^aXrj tc kcu $e$aiav reflects one of the ordinary phrases in 
Greek ethics which the writer is so fond of employing. Cp. 


Plutarch, de comm. not. io6itr, kcu'toi irao-a /cardA/ii/as iv tuS 
(tocj>w /cat fxvrjfjLr] to dcjc/mAcs €\ov<ra /cat (Si/3atov ktA. : Sextus Empir. 
adv. log. ii. 374, €S to vtroTiQi.\x.evov rj VTroTiOeTai fiefiaiov ccrn 
/cat dcrc/>aA€s : and Philo, quis rer. div. 62, /caTaA.Tic£is aa<pa\r]<; /cat 
/3e/3ata. The dyKupa of hope is safe and sure, as it is fixed in 
eternity. All hope for the Christian rests in what Jesus has 
done in the eternal order by his sacrifice. 

Chrysostom's comment on the ' ' anchor " metaphor is all that is needed : 
uxrirep yap t) dyicvpa e"^apTT]6e7cra rod TrXolov, ovk dcpl-qaev avrb irepuptpeadai, 
Kav p-vpioi TrapaaaXevuxTiv &vefioi, dXX' ^aprijOelaa ebpaTov TroieT' ovtu ko.1 t\ 
iXiris. The anchor of hope was a fairly common metaphor in the later Greek 
ethic {e.g. Heliod. vii. 25, irdaa eXirlbos dyicvpa Travroiws dviairaarai, and Epict. 
Fragm. (30) 89, oxire vavv £% evbs dyicvplov ovre j3lov £k puas eXirlbos bpfjuariov), 
but our author may have taken the religious application from Philo, who 
writes {de Somniis, i. 39), l ov %/"? KareTrrrix^ai rbv iXirlbi delas <rvp.p.axlas 
ecpopfiovvra (lies moored to). He does not use it as a metaphor for stability, 
however, like most of the Greeks from Euripides {e.g. Helena, 277, dyicvpa 
5' rj /iov rets rvxas &xei p-bvij) and Aristophanes {e.g. Knights, 1244, XeirTT) 
tis iXirls tor i(p' fjs bxovfieda) onwards, as, e.g., in the most famous use of the 
anchor-metaphor, 2 that by Pythagoras (Stob. Eclog. 3 : ttXovtos dadevrjs 
dyicvpa, 56£a ?n dcrdeveo-ripa . . . rives oOf dyicvpai bvvaral ; <ppbvi}cris, 
p.eya\o\pvx<-a> dvdpla' ravras ovdels x fl f x< ^ v craXevei). 

Suddenly he breaks the metaphor, 3 in order to regain the 
idea of the priesthood of Jesus in the invisible world. Hope 
enters the unseen world ; the Christian hope, as he conceives it, 
is bound up with the sacrifice and intercession of Jesus in the 
Presence of God, and so he uses language from the ritual of 
Lv i6 2f - about Aaron "passing inside the veil," or curtain that 
screened the innermost shrine. To this conception he returns 
in 9 3f - after he has described the vital functions of Jesus as 
Upevs (6 20f -). For at last he has reached what he regards as the 
cardinal theme of his homily. The first paragraph (7 1 ' 3 ), which 
is one long sentence in Greek, applies and expands eis t6i> aiwea, 
the first note of Melchizedek's priesthood being that it is per- 
petual, thus typifying the priesthood of Jesus. The next is (7 4 " 10 ), 
that it is prior and superior to the levitical priesthood ; this is 

1 The comparison between hope and a voyage in de Abrahamo, 9, is 
different : 6 5e iXtrl^wv, ws avrb StjXoi Todvo/xa, iXXnrris, itpiipevos /xev del rod 
KaXou, yurjirw 5* icpiKfcrdai tovtov Sebvvrj/ievos, dXX' eot/cws reus TrX£ovo-ii>, 0! 
cnrevbovres els Xiiie'vas Karalpetv OaXaTrevovcnv ivopixlcracrdat /xr] bwd/xevoi. 
This is nearer to the thought of Ro 8 24 - 25 . 

2 For the anchor as a symbol on tombs, pagan and Christian, see Le 
Blant's Inscr. Chret. de Gaule, ii. 158, 312. Contrast with He 6 18 - 19 the 
bitter melancholy of the epitaph in the Greek Anthology (ix. 49) : iXirh /cat 
ffii, Ti>xv> fx^ya X a ^P ere ' r ^ v ^'M^' efipov \ ovdev £llo'i %' u/xiv' iral^ere robs 
fxer £fi£. 

3 A similar mixture of metaphor in Ep. Aristeas, 230 {ae fxev ov Svvarbv 
ion TTTCuaai, yap x^p LTa ^ ecnrapicas at ^Xaardvovcnv etivotav, 7) to. /xeyio-To, 
tuv 6irXwv KaTurxvowa irepiXaLc^dvei rrjv p.eylcTi\v dcrcpdXeiav), and Philo, de 
praemiis, 2 (rairrTjs 5' 6 irouJro? awbpos iarlv £\wls, 7? irrjyr) tujv filuv). 


implied in the former claim, but the writer works it out fancifully 
from the allusion to tithes. 

20 There (Sirov for the classical Siroi) Jesus entered for us in advance, when 
he became highpriest "for ever with the rank of Melchizedek.'" l For 
" Melchizedek, the king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God," who " met 
Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him "• - 
2 who had " a tenth part (deKdrTjv, sc. fxoipa.i>) of everything " assigned him by 
Abraham — this Melchizedek is (sc. &i>) primarily a " king of righteousness " 
(that is the meaning of his name) ; then, besides that, "king of Salem" 
(which means, king of peace). s He has neither father nor mother nor gene- 
alogy, neither a beginning to his days nor an end to his life, but, resembling 
the Son of God, continues to be "priest " permanently. 

This paragraph and that which follows (vv. 4 " 10 ) are another 
little sermon, this time on the story of Gn 14 18 - 20 . In 6 20 -7 3 
the writer starts from the idea that Jesus is dp^icpeus eis t6v 
alCjva Kara tt/v rd^tv MeA^io-eSe/c, and shows how the Melchizedek 
priesthood was eis tov aluva, i.e. explaining Ps no 4 from Gn 
14 18 " 20 . Eicrfj\0€i> in 6 20 is explained later, in 9 12f \ rip6Spo|xos 
recalls apx^yos (2 10 ), with its suggestion of pioneering. The 
term is only used in the LXX of the days capos, irpo^pojxoi 
<TTa.<pv\rj<i (Nu 13 22 ), or of early fruit (u>s TrpoSpo/xos o-vkov, Is 28 4 ) ; 
the present sense occurs, however, in Wis 12 8 , where wasps or 
hornets are called the irpoopopoi of God's avenging host. The 
thought here is of Christ entering heaven as we are destined to 
do, after him, once like him (5 s ) we are " perfected." Vv. 1 ' 8 
in ch. 7 are another of the writer's long sentences : outos 6 MeX- 
XureSeic . . . p,eVei tepeus eis to oini'eKe's is the central thought, 
but the subject is overloaded with quotations and comments, 
including a long fieV . . . %£ clause. The length of the sentence 
and the difficulty of applying fievei lepevs eis to 8ir)vei<h to 
Melchizedek have led some editors to make Jesus the subject of 
the sentence : ovtos (Jesus) yap (6 McX^io-eSeK . . . t<S vm Oeov) 
p.eW tepevs €is tov alwva. But the oSros, as v. 4 shows, is 
Melchizedek, and the theory is wrecked upon v. 8 , for it is quite 
impossible to take eW ktX. as " in the upper sanctuary (sc. iartv) 
there is One of whom the record is that He lives." There is a 
slight but characteristic freedom at the very outset in the use of 
the story, e.g. in 6 owarrrjo-as ktX. The story implies this, but 
does not say it. It was the king of Sodom who i£r)\$€v eh 
uvvdvrrjo-Lv avru) perd to vTrocrTpiij/au clvtov curb t^s KOirq^, but as 
Melchizedek is immediately said to have brought the conquering 
hero bread and wine, our writer assumed that he also met 

An interesting example of the original reading being preserved in an 
inferior group of MSS is afforded by 6 <ruvavTT]cras (C* L P). The variant 
5s ffwavrria-as (n A B C 2 D K W 33. 436. 794. 1831. 1837. I?I2), which 
makes a pointless anacolouthon, was due to the accidental reduplication of C 


(OCCYN for OCYN), though attempts have been made to justify this 
reading by assuming an anacolouthon in the sentence, or a parenthesis in 
05 . . . 'Appadfi, or carelessness on the part of the writer who began with a 
relative and forgot to carry on the proper construction. Some curious 
homiletic expansions have crept into the text of vv. 1 - 2 . After fiaaCklwv two 
late minuscules (456. 460) read 8ti £8lw$ev tovs dWocpvXovs /cat ^etXaro Awr 
p.era -rrdo-qs at'xMaXaWas, and after avrdv, D* vt 330. 440. 823 put /cat ( A/Spaa/A ) 
eu\oyri<Tdeis far aCrrov. The latter is another (cp. II 23 ) of the glosses which 
were thrown up by the Latin versions. 

In v. 2 efie'piarcy is substituted for the IStoKCK of the LXX (which 
reappears in v. 4 ), in order to make it clear that Abraham's gift 
was a sort of tithe. Tithes were not paid by the Hebrews 
from spoils of war ; this was a pagan custom. But such is the 
interpretation of the story in Philo, e.g. in his fragment on Gn 
14 18 {Fragments of Philo, ed. J. Rendel Harris, p. 72): i-a yap 
tov TroXijxov apicrreia SiSuhtl t<3 Upzl K<xi Tas ttJs vlkt)<; a.7rapxas. 
UpoTrpi.iri.a-Ta.TTq ok kcu ayi.wTa.T7) iracrwv a7rap^aJv 17 oeKaTrj 01a. to 
TravTeXeiov etvai tov apiO/xov, a.(p' ov ko.1 tois Upevai. *ai vewKopois 
al Se/carai TrpoaTa^ei vo/xov Kapirwv koX 6pep.p.aTwv a7rootcSovTat, 
apfavros Trjs drrapx^s 'A/3pad/jL, os ko.1 tov yivovs ap)(7]yeT7]<; io~Tiv. 

Or again in de congressu, 17, where he describes the same incident 
as Abraham offering God ras SeKdVas ^aptcr-rr/pta rf)s V1/07S. 

The fantastic interpretation of the Melchizedek episode is all the writer's 
own. What use, if any, was made of Melchizedek in pre-Christian Judaism, 
is no longer to be ascertained. Apparently the book of Jubilees contained a 
reference to this episode in Abraham's career, but it has been excised for 
some reason (see R. H. Charles' note on Jub 13 25 ). Josephus makes little of 
the story {Ant. i. 10. 2). He simply recounts how, when Abraham returned 
from the rout of the Assyrians, dwrivr-qo-e 5' atrrtp 6 tuiv 1,oooultwv /JacrtXt i>s els 
rdrrov Tivd ov KaXovai TleSLov fiaaiKiKdv ?vda 6 ttjs 2oXi//ua 7rc>Xews vwo8e'x eTat 
jUaaCXevs avrbv MeXxtcreSe'/cijs-. crrj/xaivei 8e tovto pacriXevs dinaios' /cat t\v de 
toiovtos bp.o\oyovp.ivo}s, ws 5ta TavT-qv avrbv tt)v alriav /cat tepe'a yivtadai tov 
Oeov. tt\v fxivTOi ZoXf/tta vorepov indXecrav 'IepocrcSXi'/ia. ixopriyv ' 6 <5£ ovtos 6 
MeXx«rec)e/c77S rd} ' Aflpd/jLov crTparai S-fvia ko.1 ttoWiiv dcpdovlav tuiv iTrirrjSeluv 
Traptcrxe, xai Trapa ttjv evwxla.v o.vrbv r iiraivelv ijp^aTo ko.1 rbv debv eu\oye?v 
urroxeiplovs avri2 w 01.7)0 o.vt a rovs ex^povs. 'Afipdfxov de SiSdvros /cat tt\v 8eKaT7\v 
ttjs Xetas avriZ, ■Kpoo-8ix e ™ TV" obaiv kt\. In the later Judaism, however, 
more interest was taken in Melchizedek (cp. M. Friedlander in Revue des 
£tudes Juives, v. pp. I f. ). Thus some applied the 110th psalm to Abraham 
(Mechiltaon Ex 15 7 , r. Gen. 55. 6), who was ranked as the priest after the order 
of Melchizedek, while Melchizedek was supposed to have been degraded 
because he (Gn 14 19 ) mentioned the name of Abraham before that of God ! 
This, as Bacher conjectures, represented a protest against the Christian view 
of Melchizedek (Agada der Tannaiten 2 , i. p. 259). It denotes the influence 
of Ilpcis 'Efipalovs. Philo, as we might expect, had already made more of the 
episode than Josephus, and it is Philo's method of interpretation which gives 
the clue to our writer's use of the story. Thus in Leg. A I leg. iii. 25, 26 
he points out (a) that MeXx'cecJ^/c (HacriXia re ttjs elpfjvTjs — 2aX?7yit tovto yap 
epfiTjveveTai — /cai lepia eavrov ireTrolrjKev 1 6 deds (in Gn I4 1B ), and allegorizes the 
reference into a panegyric upon the peaceful, persuasive influence of the really 
royal mind. He then (b) does the same with the sacerdotal reference. 'AM 

1 The same sort of perfect as recurs in IIpos "Efipatovs (e.g. j 6 and II 28 ). 


6 i*kv MeXxtceS^/c dvrl vdaros olvov wpocr(p€p^T(i3 Kal ttotl&tu) /ecu aKpaTitfru 
i/'i'Xas, iva Kardaxeroi yiviiivrai Oeiq fitdrj vr)<pa\eu>Tlpa vqipeus avrr/s. lepevs 
yap icrri \6yos /cXrjpov l^wy rbv cWa Kal v\prj\ws wepl avrou Kal inrepbyKW, Kal 
fieyaXoTrpeirQs Xoyi^dfievos' tov yap v^/Lutov iarlv lepevs, quoting Gn 14 18 and 
hastening to add, ovx Sri icrl tis dXXos ov\ v\picros. Philo points out thus 
the symbolism of wine (not water) as the divine intoxication which raises the 
soul to lofty thought of God ; but our author does not even mention the food 
and drink, though later on there was a tendency to regard them as symbolizing 
the elements in the eucharist. His interest in Melchizedek lies in the parallel 
to Christ. This leads him along a line of his own, though, like Philo, he sees 
immense significance not only in what scripture says, but in what it does not 
say, about this mysterious figure in the early dawn of history. 

In vv. 1 - 2 the only points in the original tale which are 
specially noted are (a) that his name means paaiXeus 8ikchoctuVt|s ; 
(?;) that laXrjfA, his capital, means eip^r] ; and (c) inferentially that 
this primitive ideal priest was also a king. Yet none of these 
is developed. Thus, the writer has no interest in identifying 
2aX^/x.. All that matters is its meaning. He quotes lepevs tov 
6eov tov vij/Lo-Tov, but it is Upevs alone that interests him. The 
fact about the tithes (w Kal Sexd-rnic euro iran-we ejxe'picjei/ 'AfJpadp,) 
is certainly significant, but it is held over until v. 4 . What strikes 
him as far more vital is the silence of the record about the birth 
and death of Melchizedek (v. 3 ). AiKaioo-umj as a royal character- 
istic (see Introd. pp. xxxiif.) had been already noted in con- 
nexion with Christ (i 8f- ) ; but he does not connect it with elpiyv*;, 
as Philo does, though the traditional association of 8iKaioo-vvr) /ecu 
dprjvr) with the messianic reign may have been in his mind. In 
the alliteration (v. 3 ) of d-n-dTwp, durJTtup, dyei'eaXoY'nTos, the third 
term is apparently coined by himself; it does not mean "of no 
pedigree," nor "without successors," but simply (cp. v. 6 ) "de- 
void of any genealogy." Having no beginning (since none is 
mentioned), M. has no end. 'AirdTwp and dp/njcop are boldly 
lifted from their pagan associations. In the brief episode of Gn 
14 18 ' 20 , this mysterious Melchizedek appears only as a priest of 
God ; his birth is never mentioned, neither is his death ; unlike 
the Aaronic priests, with whom a pure family descent was vital, 
this priest has no progenitors. Reading the record in the light 
of Ps no 4 , and on the Alexandrian principle that the very 
silence of scripture is charged with meaning, the writer divines 
in Melchizedek a priest who is permanent. This method of 
interpretation had been popularized by Philo. In quod det. pot. 
48, e.g., he calls attention to the fact that Moses does not explain 
in Gn 4 15 what was the mark put by God upon Cain. Why ? 
Because the mark was to prevent him from being killed. Now 
Moses never mentions the death of Cain Std 7rucrr/s -n)? vofAoOeo-ias, 

suggesting that wo-xep rj fj^nvdevfxivq ^KvWa, kolkov aOavajov e'ernv 
aeppoo-vvrj. Again (de Ebriet. 14) ei7re ydp 7rov tis " /ecu ydp d\r/c?cos 
dSeAcpi; yLOV idTiv e/c 7ra.Tpos, 'aAA' ovk Ik /ar/Tpos " (Gn 20 12 ) — 


Abraham's evasive description of Sarah — is most significant ; she 
had no mother, i.e. she had no connexion with the material 
world of the senses. 

'Awdrup and d^raip were applied to (a) waifs, whose parents were un- 
known ; or (b) to illegitimate children ; or (c) to people of low origin ; or (d) 
to deities who were supposed to have been born, like Athene and Hephaestus, 
from only one sex. Lactantius {diuin. instil, i. 7) quotes the Delphic oracle, 
which described Apollo as d/xriruip, and insists that such terms refer only to 
God {ibid. iv. 13). "As God the Father, the origin and source of things, 
is without parentage, he is most accurately called dirdrwp and dpAyrup by 
Trismegistus, since he was not begotten by anyone. Hence it was fitting 
that the Son also should be twice born, that he too should become dirdrwp 
and d/j.r)Tiap." His argument apparently 1 is that the pre-existent Son was 
d/uL^jTup and that He became dirdrup by the Virgin-birth (so Theodore of 
Mopsuestia). Lactantius proves the priesthood of Christ from Ps no 4 among 
other passages, but he ignores the deduction from the Melchizedek of Gn 14 ; 
indeed he gives a rival derivation of Jerusalem as if from lepbv XoKo/jlwv. 
Theodoret, who {Dial. ii. ) explains that the incarnate Son was dfirjTup, with 
respect to his divine nature, and dyeveaXdyr/Tos in fulfilment of Is 53 s , faces 
the difficulty of Melchizedek with characteristic frankness. Melchizedek, he 
explains, is described as dirdrwp, dp.rjrwp, simply because scripture does not 
record his parentage or lineage. Ei d\7]0ios dirdrwp rjv Kai d/j.rjTwp, ovk clv r\v 
eiKwv, d\X dXrjdeia. 'Eireidr] Si ov <f>vaei ravf ^x et > dXkd Kara rrjv rrjs deias 
rpa<pi)s OLKovo/xlav, SeiKvvaL rrjs dXrjdeias rbv rvirov. In his commentary he 
explains that p,ivei lepevs els rb SiriveKis means ri)i> iepwavv-qv ov irapiire/j.\pev eh 
iralSas, Kaddirep ' Aapwv /cat 'E\edl~ap Kai •bivee's. 

'A4xop.oicop.eVos in v. 3 means " resembling," as, e.g., in Ep. 
Jerem™ ve/cpw eppt/xeVw iv <tkot€l d^co/xot'covTai ot #eoi avTwv, though 
it might even be taken as a strict passive, "made to resemble" 
{i.e. in scripture), the Son of God being understood to be eternal. 
Eis to SiT^eKe's is a classical equivalent for cts tov alwva, a phrase 
which is always to be understood in the light of its context. 
Here it could not be simply "ad vitam "; the foregoing phrases 
and the fact that even the levitical priests were appointed for 
life, rule out such an interpretation. 

The writer now (vv. 4 " 10 ) moralizes upon the statement that 
Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek and received his blessing, 
which proves the supreme dignity of the Melchizedek priesthood, 
and, inferentially, its superiority to the levitical. 

4 Now mark the dignity of this man. The patriarch ii Abraham paid" 
him "a tenth" of the spoils. 6 Those sons of Levi, who receive the priestly 
office, are indeed ordered by law to tithe the people {that is, their brothers), 
although the latter are descended from Abrahani ; 6 but he tvho had no 
levitical {it, avrwv = iK tCjv vlQv Aevet) genealogy actually tithed Abraham and 
' ' blessed " the possessor of the promises ! 7 {And there is no question that it is 
the inferior who is blessed by the superior. ) 8 Again, it is tnortal men in the 
one case who receive tithes, while in the other it is one of whom the witness is 
that "he lives." 9 In fact, we might almost say that even Levi the receiver 
of tithes paid tithes through Abraham ; 10 for he was still in the loins of his 
father when Melchizedek met him. 

1 In iv. 25 he says that ' ' as God was the Father of his spirit without a 
mother, so a virgin was the mother of his body without a father." 


©ewpeu-e (v. 4 ) is an oratorical imperative as in 4 Mac 14 13 

(0£Wp€tT€ Se 7rS)<S TToXvirXoKOS i(TTLV 7] T^S <£><AoT€KJ/iaS (TTOpyi)) J 

tttjXikos is a rare word, often used for t^Aikos after vowels, though 
not in Zee 2 6 (tov iSciv tttjXikov to 7rAaTos airf/? eariv), where alone 
it occurs in the LXX. The ovtos (om. D* 67**. 1739 Blass) 
repeats the ovtos of v. 1 . We have now a triple proof of the 
inferiority of the levitical priesthood to Melchizedek. (a) Mel- 
chizedek, though not in levitical orders, took tithes from and 
gave a blessing to Abraham himself (vv. 4 - 7 ); (b) he is never 
recorded to have lost his priesthood by death (v. 8 ) ; and (c) in- 
deed, in his ancestor Abraham, Levi yet unborn did homage to 
Melchizedek ( 9 - 10 ). To. &Kpoduaa (v. 4 ), which this alone of NT 
writers has occasion to use, explains the irdvTa of v. 2 ; it is one 
of the classical terms for which he went outside the LXX. 
'O -iraTpidpx*is is thrown to the end of the sentence for emphasis. 
In v. 5 lepareiae is chosen instead of Upmavvqv for the sake of 
assonance with Aeoei. The LXX does not distinguish them 
sharply. The general statement about tithing, kcito. t6v v6\lov 
(the IvToXr) of Nu i8 20 - 21 ), is intended to throw the spontaneous 
action of Abraham into relief; d-jrooeKaTouj' of "tithing" persons 
occurs in 1 S 8 15f -, but usually means " to pay tithes," like the 
more common Sckcitow (v. 6 ), the classical form being Se*aT€iW. 
In v. 6 the perfect euXoyrjice is like the Fhilonic perfect (see above). 
In describing the incident (de Abrahamo, 40), Philo lays stress 
upon the fact that 6 /Aeyas Upevs tov fxeyiarov Oeov offered brtviKia 
and feasted the conquerors ; he omits both the blessing and the 
offering of tithes, though he soon allegorizes the latter (41). 

Moulton calls attention to " the beautiful parallel in Plato's Apol. 28<r, 
for the characteristic perfect in Hebrews, describing what stands written in 
Scripture," holding that " 6V01 iv Tpolq. TereXevrriKaffi (as is written in the 
Athenians' Bible) is exactly like He 7 6 II 17 - 28 ." But these perfects are 
simply aoristic (see above, p. 91, note). 

V. 7 is a parenthetical comment on what blessing and being 
blessed imply ; the neuter (eXarroi') is used, as usual in Greek 
(cp. Blass, § 138. 1), in a general statement, especially in 
a collective sense, about persons. Then the writer rapidly 
summarizes, from vv. 1-4 , the contrast between the levitical 
priests who die off and Melchizedek whose record (fxaprvpov/xero^ 
in scripture, cp. n 5 ) is "he lives" (/o?t€ £wf)s Te'Aos . . . /xe'vei 
£ts to 8trjveK€^). Finally (vv. 9 - 10 ), he ventures (o>s cVos tlireiv, a 
literary phrase, much affected by Philo) on what he seems to 
feel may be regarded as a forced and fanciful remark, that Levi 
was committed 8i' 'Aj3padp. (genitive) to a position of respectful 
deference towards the prince-priest of Salem. In v. 5 Kcuirep 
e\T)\u06Tas ei< tt)s dcr<j>uos 'APpadp. (the Semitic expression for 
descendants, chosen here in view of what he was going to say in 


v. 10 cc tt] 6<7<{>ui too irciTpos) is another imaginative touch added 
in order to signalize the pre-eminent honour of the levitical 
priests over their fellow-countrymen. Such is their high authority. 
And yet Melchizedek's is higher still ! 

(a) In v. 6 " iorte legendum, 6 dt /xi] yfveaXoyovnti'os avrbv Sedac&TUJKe tov 
'Ajipad/j., ipsum Abrahamam " (Bentley). But ^{ avrQv explains itself, and 
the stress which avrdv would convey is already brought out by the emphatic 
position of'Appa&fj., and by the comment Kal rbv ix 0VTa KT ^- U') In V - J k^I 
is inserted after <5, in conformity with v. 2 , by d A C D c K L P syr hkl arm, 
etc. For airoSfKa-rovv in v. 8 the termination (cp. Thackeray, 244) atroSeKa- 
rolv is read by B D (as KaraaK-rivoiv in Mt 13 32 ). In v. 6 the more common 
(II 20 ) aorist, tv\6yr\<re, is read by A C P 6. 104. 242. 263. 326. 383. 1288. 
1739. 2004. 2143, Chrys. for ev\6yr]Ke. 

He now (vv. nf -) turns to prove his point further, by glancing 
at the text from the 110th psalm. " It is no use to plead that 
Melchizedek was succeeded by the imposing Aaronic priest- 
hood ; this priesthood belonged to an order of religion which 
had to be superseded by the Melchizedek-order of priesthood." 
He argues here, as already, from the fact that the psalter is later 
than the pentateuch ; the point of 7 11 is exactly that of 4 Tf -. 

11 Further, if the levitical priesthood had been the means of reaching per- 
fection {for it was on the basis of that priesthood that the Law was enacted for 
the Tefple), why was it still necessary for another sort of priest to emerge 
" with the rank of Melchizedek,''' instead of simply with the rank of Aaron 
{ v "for when the priesthood is changed, a change of lazv necessarily follows) ? 
13 He who is thus {i.e. "with the rank of M.") described belongs to another 
tribe, no member of which ever devoted himself to the altar ; u for it is evident 
that our Lord sprang from Judah, and Moses never mentioned priesthood in 
connexion with that tribe. 15 This becomes all the more plain when {et = iirel) 
another priest emerges "resembling Melchizedek" 16 one who has become a 
pi-iest by the power of an indissoluble {aKaraXuTov, i.e. by death) Life and 
not by the Law of an external command ; n for the witness to him is, 
" Thou art priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek.'''' 

18 A previous command is set aside on account of its weakness and uselessness 

19 {f or the Law made nothing perfect), and there is introduced a better Hope, 
by means of which we can draw near to God. 

El \iiv ouV (without any he to follow, as in 8 4 ) reXei'wais 
(" perfection " in the sense of a perfectly adequate relation to 
God ; see v. 19 ) 81a -rrjs AeueiTiK-qs iepwcru^s ktX. AeveiTiKrjs is a 
rare word, found in Philo (de fuga, rj Aeun-i/a) ^ovyf), but never in 
the LXX except in the title of Leviticus ; Upwcrvvr] does occur in 
the LXX, and is not distinguishable from Uparda (v. 5 ). In the 
parenthetical remark 6 Xa6s yap €ir' auTTJs vcvou-oOernTai, au-rijs 
was changed into avrrjv (6. 242. 330. 378. 383. 440. 462. 467. 
489. 491. 999. 1610. 1836 Theophyl.), or avT-fj (K L 326. 1288, 
etc. Chrys.) after 8 6 (where again we have this curious passive), 
and eei'ou.o0eTr)Tcu altered into the pluperfect ZvevofxoOeTrjTo 
(K L, etc.). The less obvious genitive (cp. Ex. 34 s7 em yap 

riov Aoywv tovtwv croi biadrji<r)v Kal tu> 'Io-paj/A.) eir' auTf]s 


is not " in the time of," for the levitical priesthood was not in 
existence prior to the Law; it might mean "in connexion with," 
since «ri and ivepi have a similar force with this genitive, but the 
incorrect dative correctly explains the genitive. The Mosaic 
i'o'ju.os could not be worked for the Aao? without a priesthood, to 
deal with the offences incurred. The idea of the writer always 
is that a vop.o<; or StadrjKr) depends for its validity and effective- 
ness upon the Upcvs or icpets by whom it is administered. Their 
personal character and position are the essential thing. Every con- 
sideration is subordinated to that of the priesthood. As a change 
in that involves a change in the vop.0% (v. 12 ), the meaning of the 
parenthesis in v. 11 must be that the priesthood was the basis for the 
vojxos, though, no doubt, the writer has put his points in vv. u * 12 
somewhat intricately ; this parenthetical remark would have been 
better placed after the other in v. 12 , as indeed van d. Sande 
Bakhuyzen proposes. Three times over (cp. v. 19 ) he puts in 
depreciatory remarks about the Law, the reason being that the 
Law and the priesthood went together. It is as if he meant 
here : " the levitical priesthood (which, of course, implies the 
Law, for the Law rested on the priesthood)." The inference 
that the vo/tos is antiquated for Christians reaches the same end 
as Paul does by his dialectic, but by a very different route. 
'At'iffTaaOai ( = appear on the scene, as v. 15 ) and XeyecrQai refer to 
Ps no 4 , which is regarded as marking a new departure, with 
far-reaching effects, involving (v. 12 ) an alteration of the cojios as 
well as of the Upwo-uVir]. In ical ou . . . Xeyeo-Oai the ov negatives 
the infinitive as p.rj usually does; 'Aapwy, like Kava (Jn 21 2 ), has 
become indeclinable, though Josephus still employs the ordinary 
genitive 'Aapwvos. In v. 12 p-ei-aSto-is, which is not a LXX term, 
though it occurs in 2 Mac n 24 , is practically equivalent here 
(cp. 12 27 ) to &0eTT)cns in v. 18 . A close parallel occurs in de 
Mundo, 6, rd/xos piv yap rjplv ictokAivt)? 6 #£os, oi;Se/i.iav eViSc^o- 
/xei'os 8t.6p0w(Tiv rj /xtTa^ecriv, and a similar phrase is employed by 
Josephus to describe the arbitrary transference of the highpriest- 
hood (Ant. xii. 9. 7, vrro Avctlov TretaOels, p.€Tadtivai ttjv Tip.7jv dVo 
TavT7)<; tt}s 01/aas ets erepov). 

We now (vv. lsf -) get an account of what was meant by ou 
Kcrrd tt]c Ta|ie 'Aapwi' or erepos ("another," in the sense of "a 
different ") Upetis in v. 11 ; Jesus, this Upevs /card -nye t<x$ lv MeX^io-e- 
Se'/c, came from the non-sacerdotal tribe of Judah, not from that 
of Levi. 5 E<J>' ov is another instance of the extension of this 
metaphorical use of liri from the Attic dative to the accusative. 
The perfect u.eTeVx'nKci' may be used in an aoristic sense, like 
'la-^qKO; or simply for the sake of assonance with irpocria^-qK^v, 
and it means no more than fAeTeax ev m 2l4 > indeed /x£Te'o-x«v is 
read here by P 489. 623*. 191 2 arm, as -n-poaiaxev is (by A C 


33. 1288) for Trpoo-£<Txy K€V - The conjecture of Erasmus, irpoo-io-- 
rrjxev, is ingenious, but irpoaex eLV m ^ e sense of " attend " is 
quite classical. The rule referred to in els f\v 4>u\rje (i$ 17s (pvXfjs, 
arm?), i.e. €* </>uA.t?s €is fy (as Lk io 10 ) ktA. is noted in Josephus, 
Ant. XX. 10. I, Trdrpiov Icttl firjSeva tov Oeov rrjv dp)(iepiao-vvqv 
Xafxfiavtiv rj tov i$ ai/Aaros tov 'Aapwvos. No tribe except Levi 
supplied priests. (npoorjW in v. 14 is not a LXX term, but 
occurs in this sense in 2 Mac 3 17 (oY wv 7rp68r)\ov iyivero) and 
14 39 , as well as in Judith 8 29 .) In Test. Levi 8 14 it is predicted 
(cp. Introd. p. xlvili) that /JacriAev? Ik tov 'Iov8a dvao-T^aerai /cat 
TToirjo-ei lepaTCLdv viav : but this is a purely verbal parallel, the 
fiao-iXevs is Hyrcanus and the reference is to the Maccabean 
priest-kings who succeed the Aaronic priesthood. 'AvareWeiv is 
a synonym for dvio-Tao-Qai (v. 16 ), as in Nu 24 17 , though it is just 
possible that dvaTeVaX/cev is a subtle allusion to the messianic 
title of 'AvaroXr} in Zee 6 12 ; in commenting on that verse Philo 
observes (de cotifus. ling. 14) : tovtov yap Trpeo-fivTaTov vlbv 6 
tcov oXiov dveVeiAe iraT-qp. (For Upiwv the abstract equivalent 
iepoxrvvqs, from v. 12 , is substituted by D c K L.) The title 
6 Ku'pios TjfAwy is one of the links between the vocabulary of this 
epistle and that of the pastorals (1 Ti i 14 , 2 Ti i 8 ). As the 
result of all this, what is it that becomes (v. 15 ) •n-epicrcroTepoi' 
(for Trepio-croTcpws) KaTdSirjW ? 1 The provisional character of the 
levitical priesthood, or the /xerdOeo-Ls vdfxov? Probably the 
latter, though the writer would not have distinguished the one 
from the other. In v. 15 tccn-d ttjv 6p.oioTT}Ta linguistically has the 
same sense as dc/>co/Aoiw/x.€vos (v. 3 ). In v. 16 aapiarqs (for which 
0-apKLKrj'i is substituted by C c D K * 104. 326. 11 75, etc.) hints at 
the contrast which is to be worked out later (in 9 1 " 14 ) between 
the external and the inward or spiritual, the sacerdotal ivrok-q 
being dismissed as merely o-apKtvrj, since it laid down physical 
descent as a requisite for office. Hereditary succession is 
opposed to the inherent personality of the Son ( = 9 14 ). The dis- 
tinction between o-apKiKo? ( = fleshly, with the nature and qualities 
of o-dpi;) and o-dp/avos (fleshy, composed of <rdp£) is blurred in 
Hellenistic Greek of the period, where adjectives in -ivos tend to 
take over the sense of those in -ikos, and vice versa. In v. 17 
jiap-rupeuTCH (cp. yuaprupou/xevos, v. 8 ) is altered to the active (io 15 ) 
fxaprvpei by C D K L 256. 326. 436. 1175. 1837. 2127 syr hU vg 
arm Cbrys. 

The |x6Td0ecris of v. 12 is now explained negatively (d0€TT]<ns) 
and positively (eimo-aY^Y 1 !) in vv. 18 - 19 . 'AGe'rrjcris (one of his juristic 
metaphors, cp. Q 26 ) ylverai (i.e. by the promulgation of Ps no 4 ) 
TrpoayouCTT)? (cp. IMA. hi. 247, rd irpodyovTa i^ai/ucr/AaTa : irpodytiv is 

1 KardciijXov is the classical intensive form of 8ij\ov, used here for the sake 
of assonance with the following Kara. 



not used by the LXX in this sense of " fore-going ") erroXfjs (v. 16 ) 
Bid to auTTJs (unemphatic) do-Ge^es Kal d^cj^eXe's (alliteration). 
'Ai/w<}>eX^s is a word common in such connexions, e.g. Ep. Arist. 
253, oirep avaxpeXh koL dAyeivov ioriv ', Polyb. xii. 25 s atpqXov ko.1 
di/ax^eAe'i. The uselessness of the Law lay in its failure to secure 
an adequate forgiveness of sins, without which a real access or 
fellowship (iyyi^iv tu 8cw) was impossible ; ouoey eTeXeiwo-ef, it led 
to no absolute order of communion between men and God, no 
TeXciwo-is. The positive contrast (v. 19 ) is introduced by the strik- 
ing compound e-jreio-aywyT) (with yiWrai), a term used by Josephus 
for the replacing of Vashti by Esther (Ant. xi. 6. 2, o-/?eWuo-0cu ydp 
to 7r/3os rrjv TrpoTTjpav <pi\6(TTopyov €Te'pas eVeio-aywy^, *ai to 7rpos €K€i- 
vrjv evvovv d7roo"7rw/i.evov Kara p.u<pbv ytyveo-dai ti}s o~vvovo-q<i) ; there 
is no force here in the «r«, as if it meant " fresh " or " further." 
The new cXms is Kpei-nw by its effectiveness (6 18 ) ; it accomplishes 
what the y6p.os and its Upwo-vvrj had failed to realize for men, viz. 
a direct and lasting access to God. In what follows the writer 
ceases to use the term cAm's, and concentrates upon the eyyi^eu' 
tw 8ew, since the essence of the eX-m's lies in the priesthood and 
sacrifice of Jesus the Son. With this allusion to the KpdrTUiv IXtris, 
he really resumes the thought of 6 18 - 19 ; but he has another 
word to say upon the superiority of the Melchizedek priest, and 
in this connexion he recalls another oath of God, viz. at the 
inauguration or consecration mentioned in Ps no 4 , a solemn 
divine oath, which was absent from the ritual of the levitical 
priesthood, and which ratifies the new priesthood of Jesus as 
permanent (vv. 20 * 22 ), enabling him to do for men what the levitical 
priests one after another failed to accomplish (vv. 23 " 25 ). 

20 A better Hope, because it was not promised apart fro?ti an oath. Previous 
priests (01 ixiv — levitical priests) became priests apart from any oath, 21 but 
he has an oath from Him who said to him, 

" The Lord has sworn, and he will not change his mind, 

thou art a priest for ever." 
22 And this makes Jesus surety for a superior covenant. 23 Also, while they (ol 
/xif) became priests in large numbers, since death prevents them from continuing 
to serve, 24 he holds his priesthood without any successor, since he continues for 
ever. ^ Hence for all time he is able to save those who approach God through 
him, as he is always living to intercede on their behalf 

The long sentence (vv. 20 " 22 ) closes with 'Itjo-ous in an emphatic 
position. After Kal ko.0' 00-oy ou x w P l 5 opKw/jioo-ias, which connect 
\sc. tovto yiverai) with e7T£to-aywy^ KpetTTovos IXmooSj there is a long 
explanatory parenthesis oi uey yap . . . cis to^ <uwm, exactly in 
the literary style of Philo (e.g. quis rer. div. 17, Z<p' 00-ov yap ol/xai 
ktX. — vovs ifkv yap . . . alo-Qrjo-LS — eVt toctovtov ktX.). In v. 20 
6pK«|Aocr£a (oath-taking) is a neuter plural (cp. Syll. 593 29 , OGIS. 
229 s2 ) which, like avTu/xoo-La, has become a feminine singular of 
the first declension, and elcnv ycyo^Tes is simply an analytic form 


of the perfect tense, adopted as more sonorous than ycyovacri. As 
we have already seen (on 6 13 ), Philo (de sacrific. 28-29) discusses 
such references to God swearing. Thousands of people, he ob- 
serves, regard an oath as inconsistent with the character of God, who 
requires no witness to his character. " Men who are disbelieved 
have recourse to an oath in order to win credence, but God's mere 
word must be believed (6 Se 616% ko\ Xeymv 7tio-tos ecrnv) ; hence, 
his words are in no sense different from oaths, as far as assurance 
goes." He concludes that the idea of God swearing an oath is 
simply an anthropomorphism which is necessary on account of 
human weakness. Our author takes the OT language in Ps no 4 
more naively, detecting a profound significance in the line wfAoo-ey 
Kupios Kal ou |AeTa/A€\T]8rj<reT(H (in the Hellenistic sense of " regret " 
= change his mind). The allusion is, of course, to the levitical 
priests. But Roman readers could understand from their former 
religion how oaths were needful in such a matter. Claudius, 
says Suetonius {Vit. Claud. 22), "in co-optandis per collegia 
sacerdotibus neminem nisi juratus {i.e. that they were suitable) 

The superfluous addition of koto ttjv Ta|iv McXx^eSe'tc was soon made, 
after «ls tov aliva, by x° A D K L P vt SyrP esh hkl boh eth Eus (Dem. iv. 
15. 40), etc. 

napapeVeic means to remain in office or serve (a common 
euphemism in the papyri). The priestly office could last in a 
family (cp. Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 2, -n}? UparLK^s Tiyu^s p.eyio-r-^% ouo-qs xal 
ev ra yeVei Trapa/Atv Wcrr/s), but mortal men (aTrodvyaKovres, V. 8 ) COuid 
not Trapa/AeYeiv as priests, whereas (v. 24 ) Jesus remains a perpetual 
lepeu's, Si&to peVeiv ( = irdvTore £w»',v. 25 )auT6i'(superfluous as in Lk 2 4 
Sta to avTov elvai). 'AirapdpaToi', a legal adjective for " inviolable," 
is here used in the uncommon sense of non-transferable (boh 
Chrys. ovk e^ci SidSoxov, Oecumenius, etc. dStdSoxov), as an equiva- 
lent for /xrj TrapafiaLvovo-av et? aXAov, and contrasts Jesus with the 
long succession of the levitical priests (irXeiovts). The passive 
sense of "not to be infringed" (cp. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 43, 

(}v <fcap.ev a.irapa.fia.Tov Tavrrjv etvai, where the adjective 

= ineluctabile) or " unbroken " does not suit the context, for 
Jesus had no rivals and the word can hardly refer to the invasion 
of death. Like yeyu\L\>atrp.4va in 5 14 , also after cxeic, it has a pre- 
dicative force, marked by the absence of the article. Philo {quis 
rer. div. heres, 6) finds a similar significance in the etymology of 
Kupios as a divine title : /cvpios p.\v yap -n-apa to Kvpos, o Br] (3ej3at6v 
ecrriv, eiprjTdi, kolt ivavriOTrp-a d/3e/3aiou teal aKvpov. But our author 

does not discover any basis for the perpetuity of 6 kv'/dios rjp.Civ in 
the etymology of xvpios, and is content (in vv. 22-24 ) to stress the 
line of the psalm, in order to prove that Jesus guaranteed a superior 
^laO-qK-q (i.e. order of religious fellowship). "Ey-po? is one of the 


juristic terms (vg, sponsor) which he uses in a general sense ; here 
it is "surety " or "pledge." AiaOr/KT) is discussed by him later 
on ; it is a term put in here as often to excite interest and anticipa- 
tion. How readily Iyyuos could be associated with a term like 
vwleiv (v. 25 ) may be understood from Sir 2Q 15t : 

X<a.piTa<; iyyvov p.r) iiriXdOr), 

ZSuiKtv yap tt)v ij/v)^rjv clvtov {nrep crov. 
ayada. iyyvov avarpeif/ei ap.apTw\6s, 

/cat a^dpuxTOS iv Siavoia. ey/caTaAeu/'et pucrd/xcvov. 

Our author might have written /tccnV^s here as well as in 8 8 ; he 
prefers lyyuos probably for the sake of assonance with yiyovev or 
even iyyi£op.ev. As fxeo-LTeveiv means to vouch for the truth of a 
promise or statement (cp. 6 17 ), so lyyuos means one who vouches 
for the fulfilment of a promise, and therefore is a synonym for 
/a€o-itt;s here. The conclusion (v. 25 ) is put in simple and 
effective language. Els t6 irarreXc's is to be taken in the temporal 
sense of the phrase, as in BM. iii. 161 11 (a.d. 212) diro tov 
vvv ci? to 7ravreAe's, being simply a literary variant for irdvTOTe. 
The alternative rendering " utterly " suits Lk 13 11 better than this 
passage. This full and final Upwowrj of Jesus is the KpeiTTwe eXiris 
(v. 19 ), the TeAaWis which the levitical priesthood failed to supply, 
a perfect access to God's Presence. His intercession (ivrvyxdvew, 
sc. #e<j) as in Ro 8 34 os koX IvTvy-^avu virep vp.wv) has red blood in 
it, unlike Philo's conception, e.g. in Vit. Mos. iii. 14, dvayKalov yap 
rjv tov lepu>p.evov (the highpriest) t<j tov koct/aou Trarpl TrapaKXrjTu) 
XP?l0~6ai TfActoTaTO) tt/v dpe-ri]v vlw (i.e. the Logos) 7rpo9 re dpvrjo-Ttav 
ap.apt]p,dTOiv «al ^op-qyiav cufaOovuTaTtov dyaOiov, and in quis rer. dw. 
42, where the Logos is i/ceTTjs tov OvqTov KrjpaivovTos del 7rpos to 
d(f>9apTov Trapd 8c tco </>vvti 7rp6s eveXiricrTLav tov p.-qiroT€ tov iXeco deov 

■n-epuBuv to tSiov Ipyov. The function of intercession in heaven for 
the People, which originally (see p. 37) was the prerogative of 
Michael the angelic guardian of Israel, or generally of angels (see 
on i 14 ), is thus transferred to Jesus, to One who is no mere angel 
but who has sacrificed himself for the People. The author 
deliberately excludes any other mediator or semi-mediator in the 
heavenly sphere (see p. xxxix). 

A triumphant little summary (vv. 26-28 ) now rounds off the 
argument of 6 19f *~7 25 : 

26 Such was the highpriest for us, saintly, innocent, unstained, far from 
all contact with the sinful, lifted high above the heavens, '•" one who has no 
need, like yonder highpriests, day by day to offer sacrifices first for their own 
sins and t lien for (the preposition is omitted as in Ac 26 18 ) those of the People — 
he did that once for all in offering up himself 28 For the Law appoints 
human beings in their weakness to the priesthood ; but the word of the Oath 
(which came after the Law) appoints a Son who is made perfect for ever. 


The text of this paragraph has only a few variants, none of any import- 
ance. After -f|[iiv in v. 26 ko.1 is added by A B D 1739 syrP esh hkl Eusebius 
("was exactly the one for us "). In v. 27 it makes no difference to the sense 
whether irpocrevtyKas (k A \V 33. 256 436. 442. 1837. 2004. 2127 arm Cyr.) 
or dvcve'-yicas (B C D K L P etc. Chrys. ) is read ; the latter may have been 
suggested by dva^e'peiv, or irpoeevtynas may have appealed to later scribes as 
the more usual and technical term in the epistle. The technical distinction 
between dva<|>epeiv (action of people) and irpo<r<ptpet.v (action of the priest) 
had long been blurred ; both verbs mean what we mean by " offer up " or 
" sacrifice." In v. 28 the original lepeh (D* 1 r vg) was soon changed (to con- 
form with dpxiepeis in v.- 7 ) into apxiepets. The reason why UpeOs and 
lepels have been used in 7 lfc is that Melchizedek was called iep€vs, not 
dpxtepevs. Once the category is levitical, the interchange of apxiept v$ and 
lepevs becomes natural. 

The words toioutos y^p ^f"" eirpentv (another daring use of 
eirperrtv, cp. 2 10 ) dpxiepeu's (v. 26 ) might be bracketed as one of 
the author's parentheses, in which case ocrios ktX. would carry on 
irde-roTe £wv . . . auiw. But os in Greek often follows toioutos, 
and the usual construction is quite satisfactory, rdp is intensive, 
as often. It is generally misleading to parse a rhapsody, but there 
is a certain sequence of thought in oo-io? ktX., where the positive 
adjective ocrios is followed by two negative terms in alliteration 
(aitaKOS, djaiai/TOs), and Kcxwpiop-eVos oltto tG>v &u.apTU)\aik is further 
defined by u<J/r)\6Tepos twv oupacoii' yeyofievos (the same idea as in 
4 14 SitXrjivOoTa rovs oupavovs). He is oo-ios, pious or saintly 
(cp. ERE. vi. 743), in virtue of qualities like his reverence, 
obedience, faith, loyalty, and humility, already rioted. "Akcikos 
is innocent (as in Job 8 20 , Jer n 19 ), one of the LXX equivalents 
for Dn or D^om, not simply = devoid of evil feeling towards men; 

T * T 

like dfjuavros, it denotes a character x w P^ dpaprta^. 'Afiieu'Tos is 
used of the untainted Isis in OR. 1380 (ev II6Vtu> d/AiWros). 
The language may be intended to suggest a contrast between 
the deep ethical purity of Jtsus and the ritual purity of the 
levitical highpriest, who had to take extreme precautions against 
outward defilement (cp. Lv 2i 10 ^ 5 for the regulations, and the 

details in Josephus, Ant. iii. 12. 2, p.rj fiovov Se 7T€pi. Tas lepovpyias 
KaOapovs cTvai, o-irov$d£,eiv 81 kou irept tt?v auTW oYarrai', ws avrrjv 
ap,epirTov eivaC kcu Sid ravrrjv TrjV aiTiav, 01 t^v UpaTLKr]v aToXrjv 

CpOpOWT£S ap.Wp.Ol T€ £10-1 KCIX 7T€pi TTO.VTO. KO.Qa.pOl KOU VT/CpdXlOl), and 

had to avoid human contact for seven days before the ceremony 
of atonement-day. The next two phrases go together. Kexwpio - - 
ficVos d-n-o Twf dfiapTGAwe is intelligible in the light of g 2S ; Jesus 
has d7ra£ sacrificed himself for the sins of men, and in that sense 
his connexion with dpapruiXoi is done. He is no levitical high- 
priest who is in daily contact with them, and therefore obliged 
to sacrifice repeatedly. Hence the writer at once adds (v. 27 ) a 
word to explain and expand this pregnant thought ; the sphere 
in which Jesus now lives (u\j/T]\6Tepos ktX.) is not one in which, 


as on earth, he had to suffer the contagion or the hostility of 
dfiapTwXoi (12 2 ) and to die for human sins. 

" He has outsoared the shadow of our night ; 
Envy and calumny and hate and pain . . . 
Can touch him not and torture not again ; 
From the contagion of the world's slow stain 
He is secure." 

This is vital x to the sympathy and intercession of Jesus ; it is 
in virtue of this position before God that he aids his people, 
as TCTeXeiwfjiecos, and therefore able to do all for them. His 
priesthood is, in modern phrase, absolute. As eternal dpxiepeu's 
in the supreme sense, and as no longer in daily contact with 
sinners, Jesus is far above the routine ministry of the levitical 
dpxiepeis. The writer blends loosely in his description (v. 27 ) the 
annual sacrifice of the highpriest on atonement-day (to which 
he has already referred in 5 3 ) and the daily sacrifices offered by 
priests. Strictly speaking the apxiepeis did not require to offer 
sacrifices Kaff rj/xipav, and the accurate phrase would have been kclt' 
iviavrov. According to Lv 6 19 * 23 the highpriest had indeed to offer 
a cereal offering morning and evening ; but the text is uncertain, 
for it is to be offered both on the day of his consecration and 
also Sid iravTos. Besides, this section was not in the LXX text 
of A, so that the writer of Hebrews did not know of it. Neither 
had he any knowledge of the later Jewish ritual, according to 
which the highpriest did offer this offering twice a day. 
Possibly, however, his expression here was suggested by Philo's 
statement about this offering, viz. that the highpriest did offer a 
daily sacrifice {guts rer. div. 36 : ras eVSeXe^cts Ovcrtas . . . rp t« 
wrep eauTwv ol Upels 7rpoa<p4pov(Ti ttjs o-e/AiSdAcw? koll rrjv virep tov 
edvovs Tuiv Bvelv a/jLvuiv, de spec. leg. iii. 23, 6 dp^ie/Dcus . . . e.vya.% 
Se kcu Ovo-ias tcAwv Ka#' e/cdoT^v rj/xipav). It is true that this 
offering uire'p eainw was not a sin-offering, only an offering of 
cereals ; still it was reckoned a Ovcrta, and in Sir 45 14 it is counted 
as such. Touto yap iirol^aev refers then to his sacrifice for sins 
(q 28 ), not, of course, including any sins of his own (see on 5 3 ) ; 
it means u-n-ep rac dfiapTiwe too XaoC, and the writer could afford 
to be technically inexact in his parallelism without fear of being 
misunderstood. "Jesus offered his sacrifice," "Jesus did all 
that a highpriest has to do," — this was what he intended. The 
Greek fathers rightly referred touto to cireira tuc too Aaou, as if 
the writer meant " this, not that irpoTepoe." It is doubtful if he 
had such a sharp distinction in his mind, but when he wrote touto 

1 Thus Philo quotes (de Fug. 12) with enthusiasm what Plato says in the 
Theatetus : oVt atroktaQai tA KaKa ciiardf — virevavriov yap ti rip ayady del 
tli>u.i dvajKi] — oCre 4v tieiois avrd idpvaOai. 


he was thinking of ruv toG XaoO, and of that alone. An effort 
is sometimes made to evade this interpretation by confining 
kciG' f\nepav to 6s ook ?x€i and understanding " yearly " after 

01 dpxiepels, as if the idea were that Christ's daily intercession 
required no daily sacrifice like the annual sacrifice on atonement- 
day. But, as the text stands, dvdyKi]v is knit to ko.6' rjp.epav, and 
these words must all be taken along with <2<nrep ol dpxiepels 
(€ X ovo-i). 

Compare the common assurance of the votaries of Serapis, e.g. BGU. 
ii. 385 (ii/iii A.D. ), rb irpoiTKVvtjfj.d aov iroiQ (car e/caaTTjj' i]/j.ipav irapa r£ Kvpi(p 
'SapaTTiSi kclI rofc avvvtoLS deols. 

A deep impression is made by the words iainbv d^^yKas, 
"pro nobis tibi uictor et uictima, et ideo uictor, quia uictima, 
pro nobis tibi sacerdos et sacrificium, et ideo sacerdos, quia 
sacrificium" (Aug. Con/, x. 43). What is meant by this the 
writer holds over till he reaches the question of the sacrifice of 
Jesus as dpxiepeu's (9 lf -)- As usual, he prepares the way for a 
further idea by dropping an enigmatic allusion to it. Meantime 
(v. 28 ) a general statement sums up the argument. KaQio-rqaiv is 
used as in I Mac IO 20 {KaOe.GTaKap.iv <re arjfxepov dp^iepea tov 
IOvovs aov), and daOivnav recalls 5 2 (7reptK£iTai daueveiav), in the 
special sense that such weakness involved a sacrifice for one's 
personal sins (lorep twv 1S1W d/xapriwv). Whereas Jesus the Son 
of God (as opposed to dvapw-n-ovs do-Bevels) was appointed by a 
divine order which superseded the Law (fxtra tov vop.ov = vv. 11-19 ), 
and appointed as one who was TeTeXeiwpeVos (in the sense of 2 10 ) 
els tov cuwra. It is implied that he was appointed dpxiepeu's, 
between which and Upevs there is no difference. 

The writer now picks up the thought (7 22 ) of the superior 
8ta0r|KTi which Jesus as dpxiepeus in the eternal ctkt]^ or 
sanctuary mediates for the People. This forms the transition 
between the discussion of the priesthood (5-8) and the sacrifice 
of Jesus (c^-io 17 ). The absolute sacrifice offered by Jesus as 
the absolute priest (vv. 1 - 6 ) ratifies the new ha6r]Kiq which has 
superseded the old (vv. 7 " 13 ) with its imperfect sacrifices. 

1 The point of all this is, we do have such a highpriest, one who is '■'■seated 
at the right hand" of the throne of Majesty (see I 3 ) in the heavens, 

2 and who officiates in the sanctuary or "true tabernacle set up by the Lord'' 
and not by man. 3 Now, as every highpriest is appointed to offer gifts and 
sacrifices, he too must have something to offer. 4 Were he on earth, he 
would not be a priest at all, for there are priests already to offer the gifts 
prescribed by Law ( 5 men who serve a mere outline and shadow of the 
heavenly — as Moses was instructed when he was about to execute the building 
of the tabernacle: "see," God said, "that (sc. Sirm) you make everything 
on the pattern shown you upon the mountain " ). 6 As it is, hoivever, the 
divine service he has obtained is superior, owing to the fact that he mediates 
a sjperior covenant, enacted with superior promises. 

The terseness of the clause tjv eirr^ev 6 Kiipios, oxik avSpomos (v. 1 ) is 


spoiled by the insertion of koi before ovk (A K L P vg boh syr arm eth 
Cosm.). In v. 4 ovv becomes ydp in D c K L syr hkl arm Chrys. Theod. , and 
a similar group of authorities add Upiwv after 6vtwv. T<5v is prefixed 
needlessly to vdfxov by R c D K L P Chrys. Dam. to conform to the usage in 
7 5 9 22 ; but the sense is really unaffected, for the only legal regulation con- 
ceivable is that of the Law. In v. 6 vvv and vvvi (9 26 ) are both attested ; 
the former is more common in the papyri. The Hellenistic (from Aristotle 
onwards) form rtrevxev (n° B D c 5. 226. 467. 623. 920. 927. 1311. 1827. 1836. 
1873. 2004. 2143, etc. : or rirvxev, s° A D* K L) has been corrected in Pt 
6. 33. 1908 Orig. to the Attic TeTvxt Kev - Before KpeiTTovds, icaC is omitted 
by D* 69. 436. 462 arm Thdt. 

Ke<J)d\aioc ("the pith," Coverdale), which is nominative 
absolute, is used as in Cic. ad Attic, v. 18: "et multa, immo 
omnia, quorum Ke<pdAaiov," etc., Dem. xiii. 36 : eo-n 6", <L dvSpes 

AOrjvaioi, K€<paA.aiov dirdvTtav twv elprjfiii'tav (at the close of a 

speech) ; Musonius (ed. Hense, 67 f.) fiiov kou yeveVews WoW 
Kotvwviav K€<f)d\aLov civat yd/xov, etc. The word in this sense is 
common throughout literature and the more colloquial papyri, 
here with em tois XeyopeVois (concerning what has been said). 
In passing from the intricate argument about the Melchizedek 
priesthood, which is now dropped, the writer disentangles the 
salient and central truth of the discussion, in order to continue 
his exposition of Jesus as highpriest. " Such, I have said, was the 
dpx te P € "S f° r us < an d such is the dpxiepeu's we have — One who is 
enthroned, iv tois oupayois, next to God himself." While Philo 
spiritualizes the highpriesthood, not unlike Paul (Ro i2 lf -), by 
arguing that devotion to God is the real highpriesthood (to ydp 
6epa.TrevTiKov ye'vos dvddrjfjid icrri Oeov, lepwp.evov tijv p.eyd\rjv 
dpxiepuo-vvrjv aira povco, de Fug. 7), our author sees its essential 
functions transcended by Jesus in the spiritual order. 

The phrase in v. 2 t&v dyiuc XeiToupyos, offers two points of 
interest. First, the linguistic form Aen-ovpyo's. The ci form 
stands between the older r] or 171, which waned apparently from 
the third cent, b.c, and the later 1 form ; " Acn-ovpyo's sim. socios 
habet omnium temporum papyros praeter perpaucas recentiores 
quae sacris fere cum libris conspirantes An-ovpyos Xirovpyia 
scribunt" (Cronert, Me?noria Graeca Hercul. 39). Then, the 
meaning of tw dytW. Philo has the phrase, in Leg. Alleg. iii. 46, 

toiovtos Se 6 0epaTT€VT7]<; Kai AtiTOupyos twv dyt'wv, where tcov dytwv 

means "sacred things," as in de Fug. 17, where the Levites are 
described as priests oh r] tw dytW dvaKerrai Xtirovpyia. This 
might be the meaning here. But the writer uses rd dyia else- 
where (9 8f - io 19 13 11 ) of "the sanctuary," a rendering favoured 
by the context. By Ta ayia he means, as often in the LXX, the 
sanctuary in general, without any reference to the distinction 
(cp. 9 2f ) between the outer and the inner shrine. The LXX 
avoids the pagan term tepoV in this connexion, though to dyiov 
itself was already in use among ethnic writers (e.g. the edict of 


Ptolemy in., kou KadiSpvaai iv rS>v dyiwi — " in sacrario templi," 
Dittenberger, OGIS. 56 59 ). It is here denned (kcli epexegetic) as 
the true or real oKr\vr\, r\v x e-mqiev 6 Kupios (a reminiscence of Nu 

24 s (TKrjval a? iTrrj$€V Kvpios, and of Ex 33 7 kol Xafiibv Mmdj^s r>yv 

aKijvrjv airov €irr]$ev). The reality and authenticity of the writer's 
faith come out in a term like dXTjGn'os. What he means by it 
he will explain in a moment (v. 6 ). Meanwhile he turns to the 
Xeiroupyia of Jesus in this ideal sanctuary. This dpxtepeus of 
ours, in his vocation (v. 8 , cp. 5 1 ), must have (dvayKalov, sc. IqtIv) 
some sacrifice to present before God, though what this offering is, 
the writer does not definitely say, even later in g 2i . The analogy 
of a highpriest carrying the blood of an animal inside the sacred 
shrine had its obvious limitations, for Jesus was both apx<-epev$ 
and offering, by his self-sacrifice. npoo-eyeyKr) is the Hellenistic 
aorist subjunctive, where classical Greek would have employed 
a future indicative (Radermacher, 138). The writer proceeds 
to argue that this Xen-oupyia is far superior to the levitical cultus 
(vv. 4f ). Even in the heavenly sanctuary there must be sacrifice 
of some kind — for sacrifice is essential to communion, in his 
view. It is not a sacrifice according to the levitical ritual ; 
indeed Jesus on this level would not be in levitical orders at all. 
But so far from that being any drawback or disqualification to 
our dpxiepeu's, it is a proof of his superiority, for the bible itself 
indicates that the levitical cultus is only an inferior copy of the 
heavenly order to which Jesus belongs. 

Instead of contrasting at this point (v. 4 ) t& Swpa (sacrifices, 
as in 11 4 ) of the levitical priests with the spiritual sacrifice of 
Jesus, he hints that the mere fact of these sacrifices being made 
em yfjs is a proof of their inferiority. This is put into a paren- 
thesis (v. 5 ) ; but, though a grammatical aside, it contains one of 
the writer's fundamental ideas about religion (Eusebius, in Praep. 
Evang. xii. 19, after quoting He 8 5 , refers to the similar Platonic 
view in the sixth book of the Republic). Such priests (otnves, 
the simple relative as in g 2 io 8, n 12 5 ) XaTpeuouo-i (with dative as 
in 13 10 ) uTToSeiyp-ciTi icdi ctkiS tSv eTroupcuawi' (cp. 9 23 ). 'YTroSety/xa 
here as in g 23 is a mere outline or copy (the only analogous 
instance in the LXX being Ezk 42 15 to iwoo'eiy/ia tov oIkov) ; the 
phrase is practically a hendiadys for " a shadowy outline," a 
second-hand, inferior reproduction. The proof of this is given 
in a reference to Ex 25 40 : KaOus Rexp^d-norai Mwuo"f}s — 
Xp-qp-aTi^ui 2 as often in the LXX and the papyri, of divine 

1 i]v is not assimilated, though ijs might have been written ; the practice 
varied (cp. e.g. Dt 5 31 iv rrj 777 f/v 4yw 5ldu>/M, and 12 1 iv rrj yy 17 Kvptos 

2 Passively in the NT in Ac io 22 , but the exact parallel is in Josephus, 
Ant. iii. 8. 8, Muvaijs . . . eis ttjv <ski]vi\v el<riwv ixpf]l x ' XT ^ €T0 we P L & v iSetra 
irapa. tov deov. 


revelations as well as of royal instructions — plKkw iirneXelv ttjw 
aKr\vy\v. The subject of the $770-1 is God, understood from 
K€xpT]fA(£TiaT(u, and the yap 1 introduces the quotation, in which 
the writer, following Philo (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33), as probably codex 
Ambrosianus (F) of the LXX followed him, adds iravra. He 
also substitutes SeixOeVTo. for ScSety/xeVov, which Philo keeps 
(Kara to TrapdSeiyixa to SeSeiy/aevov croi iv tw opet irdvTa Troirfo-eis), and 
retains the LXX tottoi' (like Stephen in Ac 7 44 ). The idea was 
current in Alexandrian Judaism, under the influence of Platonism, 
that this vKr\vr) on earth had been but a reproduction of the 
pre-existent heavenly sanctuary. Thus the author of Wisdom 
makes Solomon remind God that he had been told to build the 

temple (vdov . . . /cat Ovaiao-Trjpiov) as piprpi.a o-Kf\vr\% dyias 77V 
7rpo?iToi/xacra5 ctar' apxys (y 8 )j where crKrjvr] dyia is plainly the 
heavenly sanctuary as the eternal archetype. This idealism 
determines the thought of our writer (see Introd. pp. xxxif.). 
Above the shows and shadows of material things he sees the 
real order of being, and it is most real to him on account of 
Jesus being there, for the entire relationship between God and 
man depends upon this function and vocation of Jesus in the 
eternal sanctuary. 

Such ideas were not unknown in other circles. Seneca (Ep. lviii. 18 - 19) 
had just explained to Lucilius that the Platonic ideas were "what all visible 
things were created from, and what formed the pattern for all things," 
quoting the Parmenides, 132 D, to prove that the Platonic idea was the ever- 
lasting pattern of all things in nature. The metaphor is more than once used 
by Cicero, e.g. Tusc. iii. 2. 3, and in de Officiis, iii. 17, where he writes : " We 
have no real and life-like (solidam et expressam effigiem) likeness of real law 
and genuine justice ; all we enjoy is shadow and sketch (umbra et imaginibus). 
Would that we were true even to these ! For they are taken from the 
excellent patterns provided by nature and truth" But our author's thought 
is deeper. In the contemporary Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch the idea of 
Ex 25 40 is developed into the thought that the heavenly Jerusalem was also 
revealed to Moses along with the patterns of the crKrjvrj and its utensils (4 4f- ) ; 
God also showed Moses "the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern 
of which the sanctuary of the present time was to be made" (Charles' tr. ). 
The origin of this notion is very ancient ; it goes back to Sumerian sources, 
for Gudea the prince-priest of Lagash (c. 3000 B.C.) receives in a vision the 
plan of the temple which he is commanded to build (cp. A. Jeremias, 
Babylonisches im NT, pp. 62 f. ). It is to this fundamental conception that 
the author of IIpos 'EjlpaLovs recurs, only to elaborate it in an altogether new 
form, which went far beyond Philo Philo's argument (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33), 
on this very verse of Exodus, is that Bezaleel only constructed an imitation 
(fj.ifjLrj)xaTa) of to. apx^Tvira given to Moses ; the latter was called up to the 
mountain to receive the direct idea of God, whereas the former worked 
simply dvb <tki6ls tQv yevo/xivuv. In de Plant. 6 he observes that the very 
name of Bezaleel (Sx "75(3) means "one who works in shadows" (iv cnacus 
ttoiwv) ; in De Somniis, i. 35, he defines it as " in the shadow of God," and 
again contrasts Bezaleel with Moses : 6 fj.£v olaffKias vireypacptro, 6 8' ou omas, 

1 Put before <f>ycri, because the point is not that the oracle was given, but 
what the oracle contained. 


avras 5k r&$ dpx 6 ™ 71 " 01 ' 5 (8r)/xiovpyei (piaeis. In Vit. Mos. iii. 3 he argues that 
in building the o-kijvt) Moses designed to produce Kadairep air' apxeruwov 
ypa(pi]S Kal vo^tGjv irapaday/idTuiv alaB-qra ixLp.-qp.aTa ... 6 fxiv o$v rinros 
toO irapa5ely/.i.aTos ive<r<ppayi£eTo rjj biavoia tov irpo<prjTOV . . . rb 5 airort- 
\effp.a irpbs rbv rOirov 48iip.iovpy€tTO. 

He then continues (v. 6 vuv 8e, logical as in 2 8 g 26 , answering 
to ei piv in v. 4 ) the thought of Christ's superior Xei-roupyia by 
describing him again (cp. 7 22 ) in connexion with the superior 
SiaOrJKTi, and using now not lyyvos but ueanris. Meorr^s (see on 
Gal 3 19 ) commonly means an arbitrator {e.g. Job 9 33 , Rein. P. 44 s 
[a.d. 104] o KaraaraOeU KpiT7?s /Aeo-tVr/s) or intermediary in some 
civil transaction (OP. 1298 19 ) ; but this writer's use of it, always in 
connexion with Sia0rJKT) (9 15 12 24 ) 1 and always as a description 
of Jesus (as in 1 Ti 2% implies that it is practically (see on 7 22 ) 
a synonym for lyyuos. Indeed, linguistically, it is a Hellenistic 
equivalent for the Attic /Aere'yyws, and in Diod. Siculus, iv. 54 
(tovtov yap fie<riT7]v yeyovora t£>v o/ioAoyiSv cv KdA^ois iin]yy£\dai 
(3or)6rj<reiv avrrj TrapacnrovSovpLtvr)), its meaning corresponds to that 
of lyyvos. The sense is plain, even before the writer develops 
his ideas about the new hiadrjKt], for, whenever the idea of re- 
conciliation emerges, terms like //.eo-iV^s and p.e<riTevuv are natural. 
Meo-iV?7s koi SioAXokt^s is Philo's phrase 2 for Moses (Vit. Mos. 
iii. 19). And as a SLadrjKrj was a gracious order of religious 
fellowship, inaugurated upon some historical occasion by sacrifice, 
it was natural to speak of Jesus as the One who mediated this 
new hadrjK-q of Christianity. He gave it (Theophyl. /Aeo-tV^s koX 
So'tt/s) ; he it was who realized it for men and who maintains it 
for men. All that the writer has to say meantime about the 
hiaOrjKr) is that it has been enacted (v. 6 ) em KpeiVroo-iy eiraYyeXiats. 
This passive use of kopo0eTeu' is not unexampled ; cf. e.g. OGIS. 
493 55 (il A.D.) koi tovto p.ev vpalv op^cos koi KaXws . . . vevo/xo- 
Berr/aOu). It ; s implied, of course, that God is 6 vofxoOerwv (as in 
LXX Ps 83";. What the " better promises " are, he now proceeds 
to explain, by a contrast between their SiaOrjK-r) and its predecessor. 
The superiority of the new oWt^ is shown by the fact that God 
thereby superseded the Sici^kt/ with which the levitical cultus 
was bound up; the writer quotes an oracle from Jeremiah, 
again laying stress on the fact that it came after the older SiaOrjKr] 
(vv. 7 ' 13 ), and enumerating its promises as contained in a new 81067^77. 

1 In these two latter passages, at least, there may be an allusion to the 
contemporary description of Moses as " mediator of the covenant" ("arbiter 
testament!*" Ass. Mosis, i. 14). The writer does not contrast Jesus with 
Michael, who was the great angelic mediator in some circles of Jewish piety 
(cp. Jub I 29 , Test. Dan 6). 

2 Josephus {Ant. xvi. 2. 2) says that Herod tCiv irap' 'Ayplirira tl<t\v 
itri^-qTovpAvoiv fJieo-iTT)? 7jp, and that his influence moved irpbs ras evepyecrLas 
oil ppadvvovra rbv 'Aypiirirap. 'Ykievai p.h yap avrbv Si-qXXajjev 6pyi£6/<.evov. 


7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no 
occasion for a second. 8 Whereas God does find fault with the people of that 
covenant, when he says : 

" The day is coming, saith the Lord, 

when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and with 
the house of Judah. 

9 // will not be on the lines of the covenant I made with their fathers, 

on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt's 

Land ; 
for they would not hold to my covenant, 
so I left them alone, saith the Lord. 

10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel when that 

(" the day " of v. 8 ) day comes, saith the Lord ; 
I will set my laws within their mind, 
inscribing them upon their hearts ; 
I will be a God (els 6e6v, i.e. all that men can expect a God to be) to 

and they shall be a People to me ; 

11 one citizen will no longer teach his fellow, 

one man will no longer teach his brother (top d5e\<pbt> avrov, i.e. one 

another, Ex io 23 ), 
saying, " Know the Lord." 
for all shall know me, low and high together. 

12 / will be merciful to their iniquities, 
and remember their sins no more. 

13 By saying " a new covenant," he antiquates the first. And whatever is 

antiquated and aged is on the verge of vanishing. 

The contents of the prediction of a ko.\.v\\ SiaGrjio) by God, 
and the very fact that such was necessary, prove the defectiveness 
of the first SiaOrjicq. The writer is struck by the mention of a 
new SiadrjKr) even in the OT itself, and he now explains the 
significance of this. As for r\ irpw-nr) (sc. 8ia6i]Kr)) iK.eivr\, el . . . 
afiep-TTTos (if no fault could have been found with it), ouk &v 
SeuTe'pas c£t|T€ito tottos. AeuTe'pas is replaced by eTtpas in B* (so 
B. Weiss, Blass) ; but, while Irepos could follow 7rpu>Tos (Mt 21 30 ), 
Seirrcpos is the term chosen in io 9 , and B* is far too slender 
evidence by itself. Z^relv to-kov is one of those idiomatic phrases, 
like evpuv T07rov and Aa^Seiv tottov, of which the writer was fond. 
The force of the yap after pep<j>6p.ef os is : " and there was occasion 
for a second Sia#^K?7, the first was not ap.ep,TTTos, since," etc. It 
need make little or no difference to the sense whether we read 
au-rois (X c B D c L 6. 38. 88. 104. 256. 436. 467. 999. 131 1. 1319. 
1739. 1837. 1845. 1912. 2004. 2127 Origen) or avrovs (n % * A D* K P 
W 33 vg arm), for /i.e/A<po//,cvos can take a dative as well as 
an accusative (cf. Arist. Khet. i. 6. 24, Kopiv9ioi<; 8' ov /xe/^erai to 
TAiov : Aesch. Prom. 63, oiSels cVoYkws /xe/xxj/aiTo fxoi) in the sense of 
" censuring " or " finding fault with," and /xeyxcpo'/tevos naturally goes 
with avTots or auTov's. The objection to taking au-rois with Xe'yei l 

1 fiefupd/xevos is then " by way of censure," and some think the writer 
purposely avoided adding avTrjv. Which, in view of what he says in v. 13 , is 
doubtful ; besides, he has iust said that the former 5ia8r]K7] was not d/xefj-irros. 


is that the quotation is not addressed directly to the people, 
but spoken at large. Thus the parallel from 2 Mac 2 7 (/xe/xt/'a- 
//.evos aurots ctTrtj/) is not decisive, and the vg is probably correct 
in rendering "vituperans enim eos dicit." The context ex- 
plains here as in 4 8 and n 28 who are meant by avrovs. The 
real interest of the writer in this Jeremianic oracle is shown when 
he returns to it in io 16-18 ; what arrests him is the promise of a 
free, full pardon at the close. But he quotes it at length, partly 
because it did imply the supersession of the older hiadr/Kti and 
partly because it contained high promises (vv. 10 " 12 ), higher than 
had yet been given to the People. No doubt it also contains a 
warning (v. 9 ), like the text from the 95th psalm (3 7f -), but this is 
not why he recites it (see p. xl). 

The text of Jer 38 31 - 34 (31 31 - 34 ) as he read it in his bible (i.e. 
in A) ran thus : 

ISov y)p.ipai epxovrai, Aeyci Kvpios, 

Kal SiaOrjo-Ofiai T<3 oikcd 'I07W/A. kcu tw o*ku> 'Iov'Sa SiaOrjKrjv 

ov Kara ttjv SiaOrjKrjv rjv SuOe/xrjv tois rvarpdaiv avrwv 
iv fjptpa cViXa/3o/x£vov /xov rr)<; x €t P°s avTWV i^ayay&v avrovs ck 

yr)<; KlyinrTOv, 
on avrol ovk iv£p,eivav iv rfj SiadrJKr/ fiov, 
xayw 7]jxe\r](ra avrwv, (prjcrlv Kvpios. 
on avrr) r) 8ia6i]K7) r)v 8ia$ri<TOfjLa.L t<2 oiku> lapayX 
para ras rj/j.epa<; eKCivas, cpr]o~iv Kvpios, 
SiSovs vofiovs [X.ov eis ri]V Siavotav avrwv 
Kal i-7TLypa.\pw auTOUS irrl ras KapSias avrwv, 
Kal oij/o/xat avrovs 
Kal Irjo/iai avrol<; «is debv. 
Kal avrol eaovrat tioi €15 Xaov. 
Kal ov p.rj 1 Si8a£wcriv I/caorTos rbv aSe\cf>bv avrov 
Kal CKaCTTOS rbv irXfjcrLOV avrov Aeywv" yvwOi rov Kvpiov, 
on 7ravT€S lorjcrovcnv /xe 
a7ro [jiiKpov lea? paydXov avrwv, 
on lActos ecro/xat Tats dSiKiais avrwv 
Kal rwv d/xapr iwv avrwv ov p.r) p.vrjO'dw en. 

Our author follows as usual the text of A upon the whole {e.g. \tyei fot 
(prjalv in v. 31 , K&yio in v. 32 , the omission of p.ov after diadrjKrj and of dwcrw 
after didofo in v. 33 , ov /jltj didd^wcriv for ov 5i8d£ovo-iv in v. 34 and the omission 
of avrwv after /u/cpoD), but substitutes avvreKiaw iirl rbv otnov (bis) for 8i.a6-fi- 
ffoficu ry olkw in v.* 1 , reads \iyei for (prjcriv in v. 32 and v. 33 , alters 8Ledt/j.r)v 
into tiroL7)<ja (Q*), and follows B in reading Kal i-rrl k. avrwv before the verb 
(v. 33 ), and iro\irr]v . . dde\<p6v in v. 34 , as well as in omitting Kal 6\j/. aiirovs 
(A n) in the former verse ; in v. 84 he reads ei8r)o-ovo-iv (n Q) instead of 

1 ov /jlt) only occurs in Hebrews in quotations (here, 10 17 13 s ) ; out of 
about ninety-six occurrences in the NT, only eight are with the future. 


i8r)(Tov<Ttv, the forms of oT5a and eT5ov being repeatedly confused (cp. Thackeray, 
278). These minor changes may be partly due to the fact that he is quoting 
from memory. In some cases his own text has been conformed to other 
versions of the LXX ; e.g. AD^ boh restore fiov in v. 10 , n* K vg Clem. 
Chrys. read Kapdiav (with N in LXX), though the singular 1 is plainly a con- 
formation to 5ia.voi.av (" Fur den Plural sprechen ausser A D L noch B, 
wo nur das C in 6 verschrieben und daraus eiri Kapdia eavraiv geworden ist, 
und P, wo der Dat. in den Ace. verwandelt," B. Weiss in Texte u. Unter- 
suchungen, xiv. 3. 16, 55) ; B ^ arm revive the LXX (B) variant yp&xftw ; the 
LXX (Q) variant ir\t]alov is substituted for ito\Ltt)v by P vg syr hkJ eth 38. 
206. 218. 226. 257. 547. 642. 1288. 131 1. 1912, etc. Cyril, and the LXX 
(B Q n) aurQv restored after fUKpov by D° L syr boh eth, etc. On the other 
hand, a trait like the reading ^iroitjaa in the LXX text of Q* may be due to the 
influence of Hebrews itself. The addition of ko.1 tQv &vo/juQv avrwv after or 
before icai tQv a/j.apTiu>v avruv in v. 12 is a homiletic gloss from io 17 , though 
strongly entrenched inK c ACDKLP*6. 104. 326, etc. vg pesh arm Clem 

locTeXe'crw SiaGrjicru', a literary LXX variant for iroirja-tj} Siadrjxrjv, 
recalls the phrase o-wreXeo-cu SiadyKrjv (Jer 41 8 (34 s )), and, as 12 24 
(vias 8ia6rjicr|s) shows, the writer draws no distinction between 
kcuvos and ve'os (v. 8 ). In v. 9 the genitive absolute (€7riXaj3o/j.eVou 
p,ou) after T)jj.e'pa, instead of cv 77 67reXa/3oja?7v (as Justin correctly 
puts it, Dial, xi.), is a Hellenistic innovation, due here to trans- 
lation, but paralleled in Bar 2 28 e'v rjn-ipa eVreiXa/xevou aov avT(S) ; 
in on (causal only here and in v. 10 ) . . . ivifieivav, the latter is our 
" abide by," in the sense of obey or practise, exactly as in 
Isokrates, Kara. tu>v 2o<j!>io-twi>, 20 : ols et tis iirl tcjv irpd^etov 
ififietveuv. Bengel has a crisp comment on aurol . . . KaycS here 
and on ccofiai . . . kch au-roi (" correlata . . . sed ratione inversa ; 
populus fecerat initium tollendi foederis prius, in novo omnia et 
incipit et perficit Deus ") ; and, as it happens, there is a dramatic 
contrast between Tjp.€XT)aa here and the only other use of the 
verb in this epistle (2 3 ). In v. 10 SiSous, by the omission of Swcrto, 
is left hanging in the air; but (cp. Moulton, 222) such participles 
could be taken as finite verbs in popular Greek of the period 
(cp. e.g. x«poi-ov?7#eis in 2 Co 8 19 ). The ttaivi) 8ia0f]icr) is to be 
on entirely fresh lines, not a mere revival of the past ; it is to 
realize a knowledge of God which is inward and intuitive 
(vv. 10 - n ). There is significance in the promise, ica! ecrojicu au-nns 
... els \a6v. A 8ia6T]Kr) was always between God and his 
people, and this had been the object even of the former 8ia6r}i<7] 
(Ex. 6") ; now it is to be realized at last. Philo's sentence 
(" even if we are sluggish, however, He is not sluggish about 
taking to Himself those who are fit for His service ; for He says, 
' I will take you to be a people for myself, and I will be your 
God,"' De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, 26) is an apt comment; but 
our author, who sees the new SiaO-QKt] fulfilled in Christianity, has 

1 That iirl takes the accusative here is shown by io 16 ; Kapdlas cannot be 
the genitive singular alongside of an accusative. 


his own views about how such a promise and purpose was 
attainable, for while the oracle ignores the sacrificial ritual 
altogether, he cannot conceive any pardon apart from sacrifice, 
nor any oia6rj>cr] apart from a basal sacrifice. These ideas he is 
to develop in his next paragraphs, for it is the closing promise 
of pardon x which is to him the supreme boon. Meanwhile, 
before passing on to explain how this had been mediated by 
Jesus, he (v. 13 ) drives home the truth of the contrast between old 
and new (see Introd., p. xxxix). 'Ev tu> \eyew (same construc- 
tion as in 2 8 ) — when the word Kai^rjv (sc. oiaOrJKrjv) was pro- 
nounced, it sealed the doom of the old oiadr/K-q. riaXaiou 
(ircTraXaicoKe) in this transitive sense (" he hath abrogat," Tyndale) 
is known to the LXX (Job 9 5 , La 3*, both times of God in 
action) ; yr\pa.<TKz\.v is practically equivalent to p.apaive<rdai, and 
implies decay (see Wilamowitz on Eur. Herakles, 1223). The 
two words eyyus (as in 6 8 ) d<j>avio-/jioo, at the end of the paragraph, 
sound like the notes of a knell, though they have no contem- 
porary reference ; the writer simply means that the end of the old 
foaOrjKr) was at hand (p. xxii). The new would soon follow, as it 
had done cv vlw (i 1 ). The verb dcf>avt(eiv (-co-Oat) is applied to legis- 
lation (e.g., Lysias, 868, r>jv vp,€Tepav vop-oOeatav d(£avi£ovTas) in 
the sense of abolition, lapsing or falling into desuetude, Dion. 
Hal. Ant. iii. 178, ds (i.e. Numa's laws) 6.(fjavia6rjvaL <rvve/3r) tw 
Xpovw, the opposite of d<£avi'£etv being ypdfaiv (ibid. ix. 608, 
Kara. tov5 vo/jlovs, ovs ov vcojoti oetja-et ypa<f>eiv ttoXcli yap iypd<pr)o~av, 
Kal ouScis avrous ^$dvi£e xP° vo<: )> an( ^ the sense of disappearance in 
d(£avioy*.os appears already in the LXX (e.g. Jer 28 37 *ai co-rat 
Ba/3iAwi' ct? d<£av«r/AOv). 

But the new oiaOrjKrj is also superior to the old by its sacrifice 
(9 lf -), sacrifice being essential to any forgiveness such as has been 
promised. The older oiaO-qn^ had its sanctuary and ritual (vv. 1 * 5 ), 
but even these (vv. 6f .) indicated a defect. 

1 The first covenant had indeed its regulations for worship and a material 
sanctuaiy. 2 A tent was set up {Karao-Kevd^u as in 3 3 ), the outer tent, con- 
taining the lampstand, the table, and the loaves of the Presence ; this is 
called the Holy place. s But behind (fierd only here in NT of place) the 
second veil was the tent called the Holy of Holies, * containing the golden 
altar of incense, and also the ark of the covenant covered all over with gold, 
which held the golden pot of manna, the rod of Aaron that once blossomed, 
and the tablets of the covenant ; 5 above this were the cherubim of the Glory 
overshadowing the mercy-seat — matters which {i.e. all in 2 " 5 ) it is impossible 
for me to discuss at present in detail. 

1 With tCov anapTlwv avrQv ov ixt\ fivrjo-du) <fri compare the parable of R. 
Jochanan and R. Eliezer on God's readiness to forget the sinful nature of his 
servants : " There is a parable concerning a king of flesh and blood, who said 
to his servants, Build me a great palace on the dunghill. They went and 
built it for him. It was not thenceforward the king's pleasure to remember 
the dunghill which had been there" (Chagiga, 16 a. i. 27). 


The tcaii/T] SiaO^Kri of 8 7 ' 13 had been realized by the arrival of 
Christ (9 11 ) ; hence the older SiaOrjur) was superseded, and the 
writer speaks of it in the past tense, etxe. As for tj irpwTT] (sc. 
ZiadriKfj) of which he has been just speaking (8 13 ), the antithesis 
of the entire passage is between rj irpom) 8ia0T]KT| (vv. 1-10 ) and 
r\ Kaiioj SiaGrJKT] (vv. 11 " 22 ), as is explicitly stated in v. 15 . The kcu 
(om. B 38. 206*. 216*. 489. 547. 1739. 1827 boh pesh Origen) 
before if) TxpajTY] emphasizes the fact that the old had this in 
common with the new, viz. worship and a sanctuary. This is, of 
course, out of keeping with the Jeremianic oracle of the new 
SiaO^K-q, which does not contemplate any such provision, but 
the writer takes a special view of hiaO-qK-q which involves a 
celestial counterpart to the ritual provisions of the old order. 

The former ^LaOrjKrj, then, embraced SucaiufjiaTa, i.e. regula- 
tions, as in Lk i 6 and 1 Mac 2 21 - 22 (TAews 17/uv KaraXeiTreiv vofiov 
KO.I SiKaiw/xaTa tov vo/xov tov fiacriXetDS ovk aKovcrop-eOa, iraptKOtiv 
tt]v XarpCav rjfxCyv), rather than rights or privileges (as, e.g., 
OP. Ill 9 15 Toiv i$aipeT(DV t?}s T7/x€Tepas 7raT/3t'8os SiKaiayiaTtov), 
arrangements for the cultus. A(vrpe£as grammatically might be 
accusative plural (as in v. 6 ), but is probably the genitive, after 
SiKcuayurra, which it defines. Aarpcia or (as spelt in W) karpia 
(cp. Thackeray, 87) is the cultus (Ro 9 4 ), or any specific part of 
it (Ex i2 25 * 27 ). The close connexion between worship and a 
sanctuary (already in 8 2 - 3 ) leads to the addition of to tc (as in 
1 3 6 5 ) ayiov Koap.iKoi'. By t6 ayioc the author means the entire 
sanctuary (so, e.g., Ex 36 s , Nu 3 38 ), not the innermost sacred 
shrine or ayta aytwv. This is clear. What is not so clear is the 
meaning of koo-jukoV, and the meaning of its position after the 
noun without an article. Primarily Kocr/tiKos here as in Ti 2 12 
(ras Kocr/uKas iTn6vp,ia<i) is an equivalent for iirl y^s (8 3 ), i.e. 
mundane or material, as opposed to i-aoupdviov or ou Tau-njs ttjs 
KTiacus (v. 11 ). A fair parallel to this occurs in Test. Jos. 17 8 , 
Sta. rrjv Kocrp.iKrjv p.ov 8o^av. But did our author use it with a 
further suggestion? It would have been quite irrelevant to his 
purpose to suggest the "public" aspect of the sanctuary, al- 
though Jews like Philo and Josephus might speak of the temple 
as Kocr/AtKos in this sense, i.e. in contrast to synagogues and 
■n-pocrevxa-h which were of local importance (Philo, ad Caium. 
1019), or simply as a place of public worship (e.g. Jos. Bell. 
iv. 5. 2, t^s KOcrp.iKrj<; 6pr]cn<eia<; /carapxovra?, irpo<ri<vvovp.€vov<; tc 
tois Ik TTj'i oiKovjAevTjs TrapafiaWovcrii' ets tt]V 7roA.1v). Neither 

would our author have called the sanctuary K007/.1KOS as symbolic 
of the Koo-/xos, though Philo (Vit. Mosis, iii. 3-10) and Josephus 

(Ant. iii. 6. 4, iii. 7. 7> ixaa-ra yap tovtwv fis aTro/XL/xijaiv Kai 

SiaxuVwo-u' rail/ oXwv) also play with this fancy. He views the 
sanctuary as a dim representation of the divine sanctuary, not 


of the universe. Yet he might have employed koo-/juk6v in a 
similar sense, if we interpret the obscure phrase p.v<TTypwv ko<t/u- 
kov iKKXrjo-ias in Did. 11 11 (see the notes of Dr. C. Taylor and 
Dr. Rendel Harris in their editions) as a spiritual or heavenly 
idea, "depicted in the world of sense by emblematic actions or 
material objects," "a symbol or action wrought upon the stage 
of this world to illustrate what was doing or to be done on a 
higher plane." Thus, in the context of the Didache, marriage 
would be a pwar^piov KoafitKov (cp. Eph 5 32 ) of the spiritual rela- 
tion between Christ and his church. This early Christian usage 
may have determined the choice of Koo-p-ixov here, the sanctuary 
being kovixikov because it is the material representation or 
parabolic outward expression of the true, heavenly sanctuary. 
But at best it is a secondary suggestion ; unless Koa-p-iKov could 
be taken as "ornamented," the controlling idea is that the 
sanctuary and its ritual were external and material (SiKaiw/xaTa 
o-ap/co?, x eL P 07roL V TOV > x et / ^07^0t ' 7 ? Ta )• The very position of koo-jxikov 
denotes, as often in Greek, a stress such as might be conveyed 
in English by "a sanctuary, material indeed." 

The ayioi' is now described (v. 2f -), after Ex 25-26. It con- 
sisted of two parts, each called a <TKr\vr]. The large outer tent, 
the first (tj irpcuTT]) to be entered, was called "Ayia (neut. plur., 
not fem. sing.). The phrase, tjtis XeyeTcu "Ayia 1 would have 
been in a better position immediately after tj -n-peS-n), where, 
indeed, Chrysostom (followed by Blass) reads it, instead of after 
the list of the furniture. The lampstand stood in front (to the 
south) of the sacred table on which twelve loaves or cakes of 
wheaten flour were piled (tj TrpoGeais tw apTwv = 01 aprot tt}? 
Trpotfecrews), the Hebrew counterpart of the well-known lectis- 
ternia : tj Tpdire^a . . . apTu^ is a hendiadys for " the table with 
its loaves of the Presence." Such was the furniture of the outer 
o-Krjvrj. Then (vv. 3 " 5 ) follows a larger catalogue (cp./oma 2 4 ) of 
what lay inside the inner shrine (ayia ayiwi/) behind the curtain 
(Ex 27 16 ) which screened this from the outer tent, and which is 
called SeuTcpoy KaTa.TreTao-p.a, 8euT€poy, because the first was a curtain 
hung at the entrance to the larger tent, and KaTa.TreTacrp.a, either 
because that is the term used in Ex 2 6 3l£ (the particular passage 
the writer has in mind here), the term elsewhere being usually 
KaXv/xp-a or liriairaaTpov (Ex 26 s6 etc.), or because Philo had 
expressly distinguished the outer curtain as KaXvp\p.a, the inner 
as KaTarr€Tacrp.a {de vita Mosis, iii. 9). This inner shrine con- 
tained (v. 4 ) yjpvvouv 0up.iciTTJpi.ok', i.e. a wooden box, overlaid with 
gold, on which incense (Qvp.iap,a.) was offered twice daily by the 
priests. The LXX calls this Ovaiao-Tijpiov tov 6vpndp.aTo<; (Ex 
30 1 - 10 ), but our writer follows the usage of Philo, which is also, 

1 Td"A7ia (B arm) is an attempt to reproduce exactly the LXX phrase. 


on the whole, that of Josephus, in calling it 6vp.iaTrjpiov (so 
Symm. Theodotion, Ex 30 1 31 8 ); dvpnarypiov, in the non-biblical 
papyri, denotes articles like censers in a sanctuary, but is never 
used in the LXX of levitical censers, though Josephus occasion- 
ally describes them thus, like the author of 4 Mac 7 11 . The 
ordinary view was that this 0u[xiaTr)pioi' stood beside the Xuxfia 
and the sacred rpdire^a in the outer sanctuary. Both Philo (e.g. 
quis rer. div. 46, t/diwj/ ovtwv eV tois dyiois o-xeuewv, Avvvias, 
TpaTre'^r;?, 6vfi.LaTrjpLov : de vita Mos. iii. 9 f., in the outer tent, to. 
Xoiwa rpia o-Kevr} . . . p.eaov fxev to 8vp.ia.Tr)piov . . . ttjv Sc Xvx^tav 
. . . f) &k rpdiT^a) and Josephus {Ant. iii. 6. 4 f. ; cp. viii. 4. x for 
the reproduction in Solomon's temple) are quite explicit on this. 
Indeed no other position was possible for an altar which required 
daily service from the priests ; inside the ayia. twj/ dyiW it would 
have been useless. But another tradition, which appears in the 
contemporary (Syriac) apocalypse of Baruch (6 7 ), placed the 
altar of incense ! inside the Syia dyia^, a view reflected as early 
as the Samaritan text of the pentateuch, which put Ex 30 1 - 10 
(the description of the altar of incense) after 26 s5 , where logically 
it ought to stand, inserting a inrp ^zb in Ex 40 27 (where the 
altar of incense is placed " before the veil"). The earliest hint 
of this tradition seems to be given in the Hebrew text of 1 K 6 22 , 
where Solomon is said to have overlaid with gold " the altar that 
is by the oracle" (i.e. the dyta dy<W). But our author could not 
have been influenced by this, for it is absent from the LXX text. 
His inaccuracy was rendered possible by the vague language of 
the pentateuch about the position of the altar of incense, a-rrevavTi 

tov KaTa.7T6Tdoyi.aTOS tou oVtos €7ti tt}s ki/3wtou toiv p.apTvpiwv 

(Ex 30°), where aTreVavTi may mean "opposite" or "close in 
front of" the curtain— but on which side of it? In Ex 37 the 
Tpd7re£a, the A^i'ia, and the altar of incense are described 
successively after the items in the dyta dy<W ; but then the LXX 
did not contain the section on the altar of incense, so that this 
passage offered no clue to our writer. In Ex 40 5 it is merely put 
IvavTiov rrjs kl(3(j)tov. This vagueness is due to the fact that in 
the original source the sketch of the o-K-qvrj had no altar of 
incense at all ; the latter is a later accretion, hence the curious 
position of Ex 30 1 - 10 in a sort of appendix, and the ambiguity 
about its site. 

After all it is only an antiquarian detail for our author. It has been 
suggested that he regarded *he dyta tCov ayluv, irrespective of the veil, as 
symbolizing the heavenly sanctuary, and that he therefore thought it must 
include the altar of incense as symbolizing the prayers of the_ saints. But 
there is no trace of such a symbolism elsewhere in the epistle ; it is confined to 
the author of the Apocalypse (8 3 H The suggestion that he meant fx»w» 

1 Whether the language means this or a censer is disputed. 

IX. 4, 5.] THE SACRED ARK I I 5 

to express only a close or ideal connexion between the inner shrine and the 
altar of incense, is popular (e.g. Delitzsch, Zahn, Peake, Seeberg) but quite 
unacceptable ; 2x owTa as applied to the other items could not mean this, 1 and 
what applies to them applies to the dufMiarr/piov. Besides, the point of the 
whole passage is to distinguish between the contents of the two compartments. 
Still less tenable is the idea that really means "censer" or 
" incense pan." This way out of the difficulty was started very early (in the 
peshitta, the vulgate), but a censer is far too minor a utensil to be included in 
this inventory ; even the censer afterwards used on atonement-day did not 
belong to the iLyia tQv ayiwv, neither was it golden. What the cK-qv-q had 
was merely a brazier (irvpe'iov, Lv i6 12 ). Since it is not possible that so 
important an object as the altar of incense could have been left out, we may 
assume without much hesitation that the writer did mean to describe it by 
dv/Aiarripiov, 2 and that the irregularity of placing it on the wrong side of the 
curtain is simply another of his inaccuracies in describing what he only 
knew from the text of the LXX. In B the slip is boldly corrected by the 
transference of (/cai) XP 1 " 3 ' ^ 1 ' Ovfuar^piov to v. 2 , immediately after tipruv (so 

The second item is tt|v kiPutoi' ttjs SiaGfjKTjs covered with gold 
all over (irdrroOev : Philo's phrase is Zv&oSev ko.1 1£<d6zv, de Ebriet. 
21), a chest or box about 4 feet long and z\ feet broad and high 
(Ex 25 10f -), which held three sacred treasures, (a) the golden pot 
(arrdfAeos, Attic feminine) of manna (Ex i6 32-34 ) ; (b) Aaron's rod r\ 
p\ao-T>]crao-a (in the story of Nu 1 7 1 " 11 , which attested the sacerdotal 
monopoly of the clan of Levi) ; and (c) at tt\(£k€s ttj? 8ia0rjicr)s 
(Ex 25 16f - 3 1 18 ), i.e. the two stone tablets on which the decalogue 

was written (ir\a.Kas SiaOrjKrjS, Dt 9 9 ; £v£f3a\ov Tas 7rAd/ca5 eh ttjv 

kl/3wt6v, io 5 ), the decalogue summarizing the terms of the ScaQ-qKr] 
for the People. In adding XP V<T V t° vTa.jxvo<i the writer follows the 
later tradition of the LXX and of Philo {de congressu, 18) ; the pot 
is not golden in the Hebrew original. He also infers, as later 
Jewish tradition did, that the ark contained this pot, although, 
like Aaron's rod, it simply lay in front of the ark (Ex i6 33 - 34 , Nu 
17 10 ). He would gather from 1 K 8 9 that the ark contained the 
tablets of the covenant. He then (v. 6 ) mentions the xepoufJeiV 
(Aramaic form) or x e P ou PeiJi (Hebrew form) S6£tjs, two small 
winged figures (Ex 25 18 " 20 ), whose pinions extended over a 
rectangular gold slab, called to iXaoT^pioK, laid on the top of the 
ark, which it fitted exactly. They are called cherubim Ao£r;s, 
which is like McyaAwo-wr/s (i 3 8 1 ) a divine title, applied to Jesus 
in Ja 2 1 , but here used as in Ro q 4 . The cherubim on the 
IXaoTTJpioy represented the divine Presence as accessible in mercy ; 
the mystery of this is suggested by the couplet in Sir 49 s ( 10 ) : 

'Ie^c/aijA., os eTSev opacriv Ao^rys 

r/v V7re8ei$ev avr<2 e7rt ap/xaTos ^epouySci'/i. 

1 The change from iv y to ^x ovffa 1S purely stylistic, and Zx ovaOL in both 
instances means "containing." 

2 xpucoOv dvfjLiarripiov lacks the article, like <tto.ij.vos xpvcrTj. 


Philo's account of to IXacrr^pioi' is given in de vita Mosis, iii. 
8, r/ 81 ki/3o>t6s . . . Ke^pvawfj-evrj TroXvreXtos Zi'8o6ev tc /cai e£a>#ei/, 
17s i-TriOe/AO. wcravei 7rto/xa to Xeyo/xevov Iv Upais /3t(3\oi<; WaGTrjpiov 
. . . oVep tOLK€v ct^ai (rv/xfioXov (pvcrtKwTepov pukv t?/s fXeco tov tieov 

Swva/Aews. Lower down, in the same paragraph, he speaks of 
to iwiOefia to Trpocrayopevo/xerov l\ao~Tr)piov, and to IXao-T^piOf is 
similarly used in De Cherub. 8 (on the basis of Ex 25 19 ). The 
emOefici or covering of the ark was splashed with blood on 
atonement-day ; perhaps, even apart from that, its Hebrew 
original meant " means of propitiation," and was not incorrectly 
named ikturrfipiov (cp. Deissmann in EBi. 3027-3035;, but our 
author simply uses it in its LXX sense of " mercy-seat." He does 
not enter into any details about its significance ; in his scheme 
of sacrificial thought such a conception had no place. Philo 
also allegorizes the overshadowing wings of the cherubim as a 
symbol of God's creative and royal powers protecting the cosmos, 
and explains Ex 25 22 as follows (Quaest. in Exod. 25 22 ): to. pxv 
ovv Trepl tt/v kl(3wtov Kara, /xepos elprjTaC 8el Se o-v\Xy]fi8t]v avotdey 
di/aAa/3ovTa tov yvwpicrai X®-P iV T " /w ' / Tatrra cctti (rvp./3oXa 8ie£e\0elv 
rjv 8e TauTa o~vp./3o\iKa.' /a/Jarros kcu to. ev airfj Orjaavpiipp-eva 
KO.I €7Tl TaVTYj<; TO IXacTTr/piOV KCLL TO. €7Tl tov IkacrTrj piov XaXoaiW 
yXijiTTrj Xeydyueva xepovfiifL, virep 8e tovtwv Kara to p.eo~ov <pa)vr) /cai 
Xdyos Kai vTrepdvdi 6 Xeyuiv ktX. But our author does not enter 
into any such details. He has no time for further discussion of 
the furniture, he observes ; whether he would have allegorized 
these items of antiquarian ritual, if or when he had leisure, we 
cannot tell. The only one he does employ mystically is the Kcn-a- 
TrtTaaaa (io 20 ), and his use of it is not particularly happy. He 
now breaks off, almost as Philo does (guis rer. div. 45, 7roXw 8' ovTa 

tov ivepl (KacrTOV Xoyov VTrepOereov elaavOt^) on the same subject. 

Kcn-a jAe'pos is the ordinary literary phrase in this connexion (e.g. 

2 Mac 2 30 ; Polybius, i. 67. 1 1, Trepl <Dv oi^ olov T€ 81a ttj% ypacprjs t6v 

kclto. p.ipo<; aTroSovvaL Xoyov, and Poimandres [ed. Reitzenstein, p. 84] 
irepL u)v o KaTa p.epos Aoyos €Q"ti ttoavs). Ouk e<TTiv as in I L-0 1 1 . 
Worship in a sanctuary like this shows that access to God 
was defective (vv. 6 " 8 ), as was inevitable when the sacrifices were 
external (vv. 8 " 10 ). Having first shown this, the writer gets back to 
the main line of his argument (8 2 ), viz. the sacrifice of Jesus 
as pre-eminent and final (v. llf -). 

6 Such were the arrangements for worship. The priests constantly enter 
the first tent (v. 2 ) in the discharge of their ritual duties, 7 but the second tent 
is entered only once a year by the highpriest alone — and it must not be with- 
out blood, which he presents on behalf of (cp. 5 3 ) himself and the errors of 
the People. 8 By this the holy Spirit means that the way into the Holiest 
Presence was not yet disclosed so long as the first tent 9 (which foreshadowed 
the present age) was still standing, with its offerings of gifts and sacrifices 
which cannot (fj.-q as in 4 2 ) possibly make the conscience of the worshipper 

IX. 6-8.] THE CULTUS 117 

perfect, 10 since they relate (sc. otcrai) merely to food and drink and a variety 
of ablutions — outward regulations for the body, that only hold till the period 
of the New Order. 

In v. 6 Sioi ttch'tos = continually, as in BM. i. 42 s (ii B.C.) ol ev 
oIku) 7ravT€S crov Sia7ravTos fiveiav iroiovpuvoL. Eicriaaii' (which 
might even be the present with a futuristic sense, the writer 
placing himself and his readers back at the inauguration of the 
sanctuary : " Now, this being all ready, the priests will enter," etc.) 
cmTeXourres (a regular sacerdotal or ritual term in Philo) XaTpeias 
(morning and evening, to trim the lamps and offer incense on the 
golden altar, Ex 27 21 3o 7f - etc. ; weekly, to change the bread of 
the Presence, Lv 24 8f -, Jos. Ant. iii. 6. 6). The ritual of the 
inner shrine (v. 3 ) is now described (v. 7 , cp. Joma 5 3 ) ; the place is 
entered by the highpriest a-ira£ toG eeiaurou, on the annual day of 
atonement (Lv i6 29 - 34 , Ex 30 10 ) : only once, and he must be 
alone (^tovos, Lv 16 17 ), this one individual out of all the priests. 
Even he dare not enter x w P l s aiH- aT0S (Lv i6 14f -), i.e. without 
carrying in blood from the sacrifice offered for his own and the 
nation's a.>ivQf\)i.6xuv. In Gn 43 12 dyvorjfjui is "an oversight," but 
in Jg 5 20 Tob 3 3 , 1 Mac 13 39 , Sir 23 2 dyvo^ara and "sins ' 
are bracketed together (see above on 5 2 ), and the word occurs 
alone in Polyb. xxxviii. 1. 5 as an equivalent for "offences" or 
" errors " in the moral sense. There is no hint that people were 
not responsible for them, or that they were not serious ; on the 
contrary, they had to be atoned for. Yire'p ktX. ; for a similarly 
loose construction cp. I Jn 2 2 (ov irepi fiixerlpuv [a/xaprcwv] 81 
fiovov, a\\a xal rrepl o\ov tov Koa/xov). 

Rabbi Ismael b. Elischa, the distinguished exegete of i-ii A.n., classified 
sins as follows (Tos. Joma 5 6 ) : Transgressions of positive enactments were 
atoned for by repentance, involving a purpose of new obedience, according 
to Jer 22 23 (" Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your back- 
slidings"). The day of atonement, however, was necessary for the full 
pardon of offences against divine prohibitions: according to Lv i6 30 ("On 
that day shall the priest make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye 
may be clean from all your sins "). An offender whose wrongdoing deserved 
severe or capital punishment could only be restored by means of sufferings : 
according to Ps 89 s2 (" Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and 
their iniquity with stripes"). But desecration of the divine Name could not 
be atoned for by any of these three methods ; death alone wiped out this sin 
(Jer 2 4 «). 

The author now (v. 8 ) proceeds to find a spiritual significance 
in this ceremonial. Ar|\ouyTos is used of a divine meaning as in 
12 27 , here conveyed by outward facts. In 1 P 1 11 the verb is 
again used of the Spirit, and this is the idea here; Josephus 
{Ant. iii. 7. 7, S77A.01 8e kol -roy t/Aiov kou tt/v creXrjvqv twv aapSov^cuv 
eKciTcpog) uses the same verb for the mystic significance of the 
jewels worn by the highpriest, but our author's interpretation of 
the significance of the o-ky]vtj is naturally very different from that 


of Josephus, who regards the unapproachable character of the 
a8vTov or inner shrine as symbolizing heaven itself (Ant. iii. 6. 4 
and 7. 7, o T019 Upevaiv rjv afiarov, ws ovpavbs dveiro ™ 6ew . . . 
Sid to kclI rbv ovpavbv dv€7ri/JaT0V ctvai avOpunrofi). For 606V with 
gen. in sense of "way to," cp. Gn 3 24 (tt)v 68ov tov £i!Aou ttJs 
£a»}s), Jg 5 14 (ei? 6Sov tou 2tva). Toil' dyicok here (like to. dyia in 
vv 12. 25 ? C p > j^n) as m I0 i9 means the very Presence of God, an 
archaic liturgical phrase suggested by the context. The word 
<j>ai/epoucr9ai was not found by the writer in his text of the LXX ; 
it only occurs in the LXX in Jer 40 (33) 6 , and the Latin phrase 
"iter patefieri" (e.g. Caesar, de Bello Gall. iii. 1) is merely a 
verbal parallel. In rfjs irpoSrqs cno^s cxoucttjs crrdaiv (v. 9 ), the 
writer has chosen cn-do-iv for the sake of assonance with iveo-T^Kora, 
but lx €lv o-tolo-lv is a good Greek phrase for " to be in existence." 
The parenthesis tjtis l irapaPoXrj (here = tuVos, as Chrysostom saw) 
els Toy Kcupoy rbv eyeoTTjKOTa means that the first a-K-qvq was merely 
provisional, as it did no more than adumbrate the heavenly 
reality, and provisional els (as in Ac 4 3 eh r-qv avptov) rbv 
Kaipbv rbv iveo-TrjKOTa, i.e. the period in which the writer and his 
readers lived, the period inaugurated by the advent of Jesus with 
his new 8ia0rjia]. This had meant the supersession of the older 
§La6r)K-q with its sanctuary and 8iKcuu>p.aTa, which only lasted 
p.e'xpi KaipoG SiopOoWews. But, so long as they lasted, they were 
intended by God to foreshadow the permanent order of religion ; 
they were, as the writer says later (v. 23 ), u-rroo€iyp,aTa twv iv tois 
oupayois, mere copies but still copies. This is why he calls the 
fore-tent a irapa|3o\r). For now, as he adds triumphantly, in a 
daring, imaginative expression, our dpxiepeus has passed through 
his heavenly fore-tent (v. 11 ), and his heavenly sanctuary corre- 
sponds to a heavenly (i.e. a full and final) sacrifice. In the 
levitical ritual the highpriest on atonement-day took the blood 
of the victim through the fore-tent into the inner shrine. Little 
that accomplished ! It was but a dim emblem of what our high- 
priest was to do and has done, in the New Order of things. 

When readers failed to see that tjti9 . . . Iv«o-tt)k(5to was a parenthesis, it 
was natural that ko.0' fy should be changed into Ka9' 8v (D c K LP, so Blass). 

The failure of animal sacrifices ( 9b - 10 ) lies icon-d o-\ivel%r\<jiv. As 
the inner consciousness here is a consciousness of sin, "con- 
science " fairly represents the Greek term o-weio^o-is. Now, the 
levitical sacrifices were ineffective as regards the conscience of 
worshippers; they were merely cm' Kal ■n-op.acri.p kcu oia<J>6- 
pois |3a-nTio-p.ois, a striking phrase (cp. 13 9 ) of scorn for the mass of 

1 Sc. Tjv. The construction was explained by the addition of KadtaT-qKtv 
after ivear^Ta. (so 69. 104. 330. 436. 440. 462. 491. 823. 13 19. 1836. 1837. 
1S98. 2005. 2127, etc.). 

IX. 10.] THE CULTUS 119 

minute regulations about what might or might not be eaten or 
drunk, and about baths, etc. Food and ablutions are intelligible ; 
a book like Leviticus is full of regulations about them. But 
irofxaaiv? Well, the writer adds this as naturally as the author of 
Ep. Aristeas does, in describing the levitical code. " I suppose 
most people feel some curiosity about the enactments of our law 
Trepl re twv (Spwrwv /ecu ttotwv " (128) ; it was to safeguard us from 
pagan defilement that TravroBev 17/Aas 7r€pU<f)pa£ev dyveicus kcu Sia 

fipUiTWV KCU TTOTOiV (142), €7Tt TWV fipWTWV KCU. TTOTWV O.TTap^ap.ivOV% 

€v6ew<; tote o-vyxpw^ ai ^cXeuei (158). It is curious that this de- 
fence of the levitical code contains an allusion which is a verbal 
parallel to our writer's disparaging remark here ; the author asserts 
that intelligent Egyptian priests call the Jews "men of God," a 
title only applicable to one who cre'/Serai rov Kara aXrjOeiav Oeov, 
since all Others are avOpwiroi fipwTwv «ai ttotwv koX o-Kiirr]^, r) yap 
Trao-a 8id6eo-L<; avrwi' itrl ravra Karacpevyei. rots Se Trap' rjpwv iv ov8evi 
ravra AeXoyicrrai (140. 141). Libations of wine accompanied 
certain levitical sacrifices {e.g. Nu 5 15 6 15 - 17 28™), but no ritual 
regulations were laid down for them, and they were never offered 
independently (cp. EBi. 4193, 4209). It is because the whole 
question of sacrifice is now to be restated that he throws in these 
disparaging comments upon the Swpd tc Kal 0u<ticu and their ac- 
companiments in the older vkx\vt\. Such sacrifices were part and 
parcel of a system connected with (v. 10 ) external ritual, and in con- 
cluding the discussion he catches up the term with which he had 
opened it : all such rites are SiKauupvara o-apKos, connected with the 
sensuous side of life and therefore provisional, fie'xpi KcupoG Siop&u- 
o-€0)s lmiieijjL€Ka. Here 1-mKdp^va is "prescribed," as in the descrip- 
tion of workmen on strike, in Tebt. P. 26 17 (114 B.C.) iyKarakdirov- 
Tas rrpi €TTiKeip.evr)v do-xoAiav. Aidpflwcns means a " reconstruction " 
of religion, such as the new Siatf?^ (8 13 ) involved ; the use of the 
term in Polybius, iii. 118. 1 2 (irpos ras twv 7ro\iT€vpa.Twv Siop#wo-eis), 
indicates how our author could seize on it for his own purposes. 

The comma might be omitted after Pair-rio-fiois, and SiKauopaTa taken 
closely with jaovov : "gifts and sacrifices, which (fj.6vov kt\. in apposition) are 
merely (the subject of) outward regulations for the body," iwl being taken as 
cumulative (Lk 3 20 ) — "besides," etc. This gets over the difficulty that the 
levitical offerings had a wider scope than food, drink, and ablutions ; but tni 
is not natural in this sense here, and iirl . . . Pcltttuj/jlo'is is not a parenthetical 
clause. The insertion of Kal before SiKcuw/iara (by k c B D c etc. vg hkl Chrys. ), 
= "even" or "in particular" (which is the only natural sense), is pointless. 
AiKaabfxaffiv (D c K L vg hkl) was an easy conformation to the previous datives, 
which would logically involve ewiKeiy.tvois (as the vg implies: " et justitiis 
carnis usque ad tempus correctionis impositis"), otherwise £iriKei[j.ei>a would be 
extremely awkward, after dvvd/xevai, in apposition to Swpa re Kal dvaiat. 

Now for the better sanctuary and especially the better sacri 
fice of Christ as our dpxiep^'s (vv. 11 ' 28 ) ! 


11 But when Christ arrived as the highpriest of the bliss that was to be, he 
passed through the greater and more perfect tent which no hands had made (no 
part, that is to say, of the present order), I2 not (ovM — v^ox yet) taking any b/ooa 
of goats and calves but his own blood, and entered once for all into the Holy 
place. He secured an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls 
and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on defied persons, give them a holiness that 
bears on bodily purity, 14 how much more shall (Kadapiel, logical future) the blood 
of Christ, who in the spirit of the eternal offered himself as an unblemished 
sacrifice to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve a living God." 

This paragraph consists of two long sentences (vv. 11 - 12 , 13 - u ). 
The second is an explanation of aliavlav XuTpwo-n' eupdu-ceos at the 
close of the first. In the first, the sphere, the action, and the 
object of the sacrifice are noted, as a parallel to vv. 6 - 7 ; but in 
vv. 13 - 14 the sphere is no longer mentioned, the stress falling upon 
the other two elements. The writer does not return to the 
question of the sphere till vv. 21f - 

Xpioros oe irapayev6\ievo<5 (v. 11 ). But Christ came on the 
scene, 1 and all was changed. He arrived as dpxiepeu's, and the 
author carries on the thought by an imaginative description of 
him passing through the upper heavens (no hand-made, mun- 
dane fore-court this !) into the innermost Presence. It is a more 
detailed account of what he had meant by ?xorres dpxiepe'a u.e'ycu' 
SieXrjXuGoTa tous oupavous (4 14 ). XeipoTroirj-rou, like xeipoTroiT|Ta (v. 24 ), 
means " manufactured," not " fictitious " (as applied to idols or 
idol-temples by the LXX and Philo). Toot' ecrnv ou returns -rfjs 
KTiVews reads like the gloss of a scribe, but the writer is fond of 
this phrase tovt ecrnv, and, though it adds nothing to 00 x €t P°- 
ttoitjtou, it may stand. Kticus, in this sense of creation or created 
order, was familiar to him (e.g. Wis 5 17 19 6 ). McMoVtcji', before 
dyaQwi', was soon altered into yevo/xevcov (by B D* 161 1. 1739. 
2005 vt syr Orig. Chrys.), either owing to a scribe being misled 
by irapayevo/uLevos or owing to a pious feeling that fj.e\\6vTu>v here 
(though not in io 1 ) was too eschatological. The aya0a were 
fj.e\Aoi>Ta in a sense even for Christians, but already they had 
begun to be realized ; e.g. in the XuTpucus. This full range was 
still to be disclosed (2 5 13 14 ), but they were realities of which 
Christians had here and now some vital experience (see on 6 5 ). 

Some editors (e.g. Rendall, Nairne) take tQiv yevop-ivuv ayaOwv with what 
follows, as if the writer meant to say that " Christ appeared as highpriest of 
the good things which came by the greater and more perfect tabernacle (not 
made with hands — that is, not of this creation)." This involves, (a) the 
interpretation of oi>54 as = "not by the blood of goats and calves either," the 
term carrying on irapayevd/xevos ; and (b) did. in a double sense. There is no 
objection to (b), but (a) is weak ; the bliss and benefit are mediated not 
through the sphere but through what Jesus does in the sphere of the eternal 
<TKt)vr}. Others (e.g. Westcott, von Soden, Dods, Seeberg) take 5i& ttJs 

1 Mapayev6p.evos (as Lk 12 51 , Mt 3 1 suggest) is more active than the Trecpa- 
vtpuTat. uf v. 26 . 


aKT)vr)s with Xparros, " Christ by means of the . . . sanctuary." This sense 
of Sid is better than that of (a) above, and it keeps Sid the same for vv. 11 
and 12 . But the context {irapayev6p.(vos . . . elarjkdtv) points to the local use 
of Sid in did tti% . . . <tkt)vtis, rather than to the instrumental ; and it is no 
objection that the writer immediately uses Sid in another sense (Si ai/xaros), 
for this is one of his literary methods (cp. Sid with gen. and accus. in 2 1 - J 

2'.'. 10 « 18. 19. 23. 24. 2B\ 

Continuing the description of Christ's sacrifice, he adds (v. 12 ) 
ouSe 8i' aiiAa-ros Tpdymv (for the People) Kal ia6<tx w> ' (f° r himself), 
which according to the programme in Lv 16 the priest smeared 
on the east side of the IXaarrjptov. The later Jewish procedure 
is described in the Mishna tractate Joma, but our author simply 
draws upon the LXX text, though (like Aquila and Symmachus) 
he uses yjovytov instead of x^ a P wv - Aid is graphically used in 
8id tou IStou aifim-os, as in 8i' aip.a-ros Tpdywi' ica! p.daxwi', but the 
idea is the self-sacrifice, the surrender of his own life, in virtue 
of which 1 he redeemed his People, the al/xa or sacrifice being 
redemptive as it was his. The single sacrifice had eternal value, 
owing to his personality. The term ecfxuraS, a stronger form of 
aVa£, which is unknown to the LXX, is reserved by our author 
for the sacrifice of Jesus, which he now describes as issuing in 
a XvVpwcrts — an archaic religious term which he never uses else- 
where ; it is practically the same as d-rroXuTpwais (v. 15 ), but he 
puts into it a much deeper meaning than the LXX or than Luke 
(i 68 2 38 ), the only other NT writer who employs the term. 
Though he avoids the verb, his meaning is reallythat of i P i 18 

(i\vrpw6rjTe Tifxita alfxan <I)S d/xvov d/xwfxov Kal do~7riA.ov Xpto"Tot') 
or ot Ti 2 1 * (os ISw/c€v eavTOV {nrep rjfxwv, Lva \vt paxrrjT at Tjp.a.<s airo 
7rdo"77$ dvofxia^ koX KaOapicrrj eavrw Xaov irepiovaiov). 

In this compressed phrase, aluviov Xvrpuxriv cvpdjxcvo?, (a) aluvlav 
offers the only instance of alwvios being modified in this epistle, (b) Evpd- 
ixevos, in the sense of Dion. Hal. Ant. v. 293 (outs Sia\\ayds evparo tois 
dvSpdav Kal KadoSov), and Jos. Ant. i. 19. I (ird-n-irov S6£av aperies fj.eyd\i]s 
evpdpievov), is a participle (for its form, 2 cp. Moulton, i. p. 51), which, though 
middle, is not meant to suggest any personal effort like "by himself," much 
less " for himself" ; the middle in Hellenistic Greek had come to mean what 
the active meant. What he secured, he secured for us (cp. Aelian, Var. Hist. 
iii. 17, koX avToh aorTtjp'iav evpavro). The aorist has not a past sense ; it 
either means "to secure" (like evpdfievoi in 4 Mac 3 13 and iiri<TK€\pd/'oi in 
2 Mac II 36 ), after a verb of motion (cp. Ac 25 13 ), or "securing" (by what 
grammarians call "coincident action"). 

The last three words of v. 12 are now (vv. 13 * 14 ) explained by 
an a fortiori argument. Why was Christ's redemption eternal? 
What gave it this absolute character and final force ? In v. 13 

1 The Sid here as in Sia Trvevfiaro^ aiuvtov suggest the state in which a 
certain thing is done, and inferentially the use becomes instrumental, as we 
say, "he came in power." 

2 The Attic form evpo/'os is preferred by D* 226. 436. 920. 


Tpdytav Kdi raupoiv reverses the order in io 4 , and ravpiav is now 
substituted for p.6(T\wv. The former led to ravpoiv kcu rpdywv 
being read (by the KLP group, Athanasius, Cyril, etc.), but 
"the blood of goats and bulls" was a biblical generalization 
(Ps 50 13 , Is i 11 ), chosen here as a literary variation, perhaps for 
the sake of the alliteration, though some editors see in ravptav a 
subtle, deliberate antithesis to the feminine SdfAaXis. According 
to the directions of Nu io 9f - a red cow was slaughtered and then 
burned ; the ashes (f\ ctttooos ttjs SajidXcws) were mixed with fresh 
water and sprinkled upon any worshipper who had touched a 
dead body and thus incurred ceremonial impurity, contact with 
the dead being regarded as a disqualification for intercourse with 
men or God (see above on 6 1 ). This mixture was called v&o>p 
pavTiv/xov. The rite supplies the metaphors of the argument in 
vv. 14 - 15 ; it was one of the ablutions (v. 10 ) which restored the 
contaminated person (tous K€Koivoip.ewou<s) to the worshipping 
community of the Lord. The cow is described as ajxcofAoc, the 
purified person as icaGapos ; but our author goes ouside the LXX 
for Ke/coivwpe'vow?, and even pavri^uv is rare in the LXX. " The 
red colour of the cow and the scarlet cloth burnt on the pyre 
with the aromatic woods, suggest the colour of blood ; the aro- 
matic woods are also probably connected with primitive ideas of 
the cathartic value of odours such as they produce" (R. A. S. 
Macalister in ERE. xi. 36a). The lustration had no connexion 
whatever with atonement-day, and it was only in later rabbinic 
tradition that it was associated with the functions of the high- 
priest. According to Pesikta 40a, a pagan inquirer once pointed 
out to Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai the superstitious character of 
such rites. His disciples considered his reply unsatisfactory, 
and afterwards pressed him to explain to them the meaning of 
the ashes and the sprinkling, but all he could say was that it had 
been appointed by the Holy One, and that men must not 
inquire into His reasons (cp. Bacher's Agada d. Pal. Amoraer, 
i. 556 ; Agada der Tannaiten 2 , i. 37, 38). Our author does not go 
into details, like the author of Ep. Barnabas (8), who allegorizes 
the ritual freely in the light of the Jewish tradition ; he merely 
points out that, according to the bible, the rite, like the similar 
rite of blood on atonement-day, restored the worshipper to out- 
ward communion with God. 'Ayidtci means this and no more. 

The removal of the religious tabu upon persons contaminated by contact 
with the dead was familiar to non-Jews. The writer goes back to the OT 
for his illustration, but it would be quite intelligible to his Gentile Christian 
readers (cp. Marett's The Evolution of Religion, pp. 1 15 f. ; ERE. iv. 434, 
x. 456, 483, 485, 501), in a world where physical contact with the dead was 
a filaa/xa.. Philo's exposition (de spec, legibus, i. 7re/n dvbvrutv, I f. ) of the rite. 
is that the primary concern is for the purity of the soul ; the attention 
needed for securing that the victim is d/xu/j-ov, or, as he says, 7rai'Te\iDs 

IX. 13, 14. J THE BLOOD OF CHRIST 1 23 

fiov/xwv dfiiroxov, is a figurative expression for moral sensitiveness on the part 
of the worshipper ; it is a regulation really intended for rational beings. Ov 
rwv dvo/xivuiv (ppovrli iffTiv . . . dXXct rwv Ovbvrwv, iva irepi firjdiv ir&Oos 
Kripaivwui. The bodily cleansing is only secondary, and even this he ingeni- 
ously allegorizes into a demand for self-knowledge, since the water and ashes 
should remind us how worthless our natures are, and knowledge of this kind 
is a wholesome purge for conceit ! Thus, according to Philo, the rite did 
purge soul as well as body : avayKauov tous pLtWovras (poirav els rb Upbv iiri 
fierovaig. dvalas to tc crw/xa (paidpvvecfdai Kai ttjv i/'i'xV ^P T °v cw^aros Our 
author does not share this favourable view (cp. Seeberg's Der Tod Chrisli, 
PP- 53 '■ J O- Schmitz's Die Opferanschauung des spdteren Judentums, pp. 
281 f. ). He would not have denied that the levitical cultus aimed at spiritual 
good ; what he did deny was that it attained its end. Till a perfect sacrifice 
was offered, such an end was unattainable. The levitical cultus " provided 
a ritual cleansing for the community, a cleansing which, for devout minds that 
could penetrate beneath the letter to the spirit, must have often meant a sense 
of restoration to God's community. But at best the machinery was cumbrous : 
at best the pathway into God's presence was dimly lighted" (H. A. A. 
Kennedy, The Theology of the Epistles, p. 213). 

Our author does not explain how the blood of goats and 
bulls could free the worshiper from ceremonial impurity ; the 
cathartic efficacy of blood is assumed. From the comparative 
study of religion we know now that this belief was due to the 
notion that "the animal that has been consecrated by contact 
with the altar becomes charged with a divine potency, and its 
sacred blood, poured over the impure man, absorbs and disperses 
his impurity" (Marett, The Evolution of Religion, p. 121). But 
in IIpos 'Eftpaiovs, (a) though the blood of goats and bulls is 
applied to the people as well as to the altar, and is regarded as 
atoning (see below), the writer offers no rationale of sacrifice. 
Xoj/ks at^,aT€«x^o-tas ov ytverai dcpecris. He does not argue, he takes 
for granted, that access to God involves sacrifice, i.e. blood shed. 
(f>) He uses the rite of Nu 19 to suggest the cathartic process, 
the point of this lustration being the use of " water made holy 
by being mingled with the ashes of the heifer that had been 
burnt." "The final point is reached," no doubt (Marett, op. cit. 
123), "when it is realized that the blood of bulls and goats 
cannot wash away sin, that nothing external can defile the heart 
or soul, but only evil thoughts and evil will." Yet our writer 
insists that even this inward defilement requires a sacrifice, the 
sacrifice of Christ's blood. This is now (v. 14 ) urged in the phrase 
eauToi/ -nawi\v^Ks.v, where we at last see what was intended by 
TTpoo-tptpew ti in 8 3 . We are not to think of the risen or ascended 
Christ presenting himself to God, but of his giving himself up 
to die as a sacrifice. The blood of Christ means his life given 
up for the sake of men. He did die, but it was a voluntary 
death — not the slaughter of an unconscious, reluctant victim ; 
and he who died lives. More than that, he lives with the power 
of that death or sacrifice. This profound thought is further 


developed by (a) the term afiwfioi/, which is in apposition to 
kavTov ; and (b) by 8ia nveufAaTOS cuwiaou, which goes with Trpoarj- 
veynev. (a) Paul calls Christians, or calls them to be, ap.wp.oi ; 
but our writer, like the author of i P (i 19 )» calls Christ apwp.0% 
as a victim. It is a poetic synonym for apuyprjTos, taken over as 
the technical term (LXX) for the unblemished (DID) animals 
which alone could be employed in sacrifice ; here it denotes the 
stainless personality, the sinless nature which rendered the self- 
sacrifice of Jesus eternally valid. Then (b) the pregnant phrase 
Sid irv€VfiaTO'i aiwvtou, which qualifies zclvtov -irpoa-qveyKev, means 
that this sacrifice was offered in the realm or order of the inward 
spirit, not of the outward and material ; it was no StKatw/Aa 
a-apKos, but carried out Sid irvev fiaTos, i.e. in, or in virtue of, his 
spiritual nature. What the author had called £u)t) aKardAvTos 
(7 16 ) he now calls weujia alamos. The sacrificial blood had a 
mystical efficacy; it resulted in an eternal XuTpw<n$ because it 
operated in an eternal order of spirit, the sacrifice of Jesus 
purifying the inner personality (t^v o-wei'S^o-ii/) because it was the 
action of a personality, and of a sinless personality which 
belonged by nature to the order of spirit or eternity. Christ 
was both priest and victim ; as Son of God he was eternal and 
spiritual, unlike mortal highpriests (7 16 ), and, on the other side, 
unlike a mortal victim. The implication (which underlies all 
the epistle) is that even in his earthly life Jesus possessed eternal 
life. Hence what took place in time upon the cross, the writer 
means, took place really in the eternal, absolute order. Christ 
sacrificed himself e<}>dTra£, and the single sacrifice needed no 
repetition, since it possessed absolute, eternal value as the action 
of One who belonged to the eternal order. He died — he had 
to die — but only once (q 15 -io 18 ), for his sacrifice, by its eternal 
significance, accomplished at a stroke what no amount of animal 
sacrifices could have secured, viz. the forgiveness of sins. It is 
as trivial to exhaust the meaning of ireeujAa alamor in a contrast 
with the animal sacrifices of the levitical cultus as it is irrele- 
vant to drag in the dogma of the trinity. Aiwetou closely 
describes irceufjiaTos (hence it has no article). What is in the 
writer's mind is the truth that what Jesus did by dying can never 
be exhausted or transcended. His sacrifice, like his 8ia0rJKT], 
like the AuVpcoo-is or o-wTrjpia which he secures, is alwi'ios or 
lasting, because it is at the heart of things. It was because Jesus 
was what he was by nature that his sacrifice had such final value; 
its atoning significance lay in his vital connexion with the realm 
of absolute realities ; it embodied all that his divine personality 
meant for men in relation to God. In short, his self-sacrifice 
"was something beyond which nothing could be, or could be 
conceived to be, as a response to God's mind and requirement. 


in relation to sin . . . an intelligent and loving response to the 
holy and gracious will of God, and to the terrible situation of 
man" (Denney, The Death of Christ, p. 228). 

A later parallel from rabbinic religion occurs in the Midrash Tehillim on 
Ps 31 : " formerly you were redeemed with flesh and blood, which to-day is 
and to-morrow is buried ; wherefore your redemption was temporal (nyc nSi*o). 
But now I will redeem you by myself, who live and remain for ever ; where- 
fore your redemption will be eternal redemption (c'nj; nSiNJ, cp. Is 45 17 )." 

One or two minor textual items may be noted in v. 14 . 

irvei5|i.a.Tos] J. J. Reiske's conjecture ayi>ev/j.aTos (purity) is singularly 
prosaic. Alwviov (n* A B D c K L syr v e hkl arm Ath) is altered into the con- 
ventional aylov by N° D* P 35. 88. 206. 326. 547, etc. lat boh Chrys. Cyril. 
Liturgical usage altered vjxuiv into r^fiCiv (A D* P 5. 38. 218. 241. 256. 263. 
378. 506. 1319. 1831. 1836*. 1912. 2004. 2127 vt syr v ^ boh Cyr.), and, to 
£uvti, teal aXridivql (a gloss from I Th i 9 ) is added in A P 104 boh Chrys. etc. 

In the closing words of v. 14 KaGapiei is a form which is rare 
(Mt 3 12 , Ja 4 8 ?) in the NT, so rare that KaOaptcrei is read here 
by 206. 22 t. 1831 Did. Ath. It is a Hellenistic verb, used in 
the inscriptions (with diro) exactly in the ceremonial sense under- 
lying the metaphor of this passage (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 
2i6f.). The cleansing of the conscience (cp. v. 9 ) is diro vtKp&v 
epywf, from far more serious flaws and stains than ceremonial 
pollution by contact with a corpse (see above, and in 6 1 ). As 
Dods puts it, "a pause might be made before e/rywv, from dead — 
(not bodies but) works." The object is els to Xcrrpeueiv 0ew £gWti. 
The writer uses the sacerdotal term (8 5 ) here as in io 2 and 12 28 , 
probably like Paul in a general sense ; if he thought of Chris- 
tians as priests, i.e. as possessing the right of access to God, he 
never says so. Religion for him is access to God, and ritual 
metaphors are freely used to express the thought. When others 
would say " fellowship," he says " worship." It is fundamental 
for him that forgiveness is essential to such fellowship, and for- 
giveness is what is meant by " purifying the conscience." As 
absolute forgiveness was the boon of the new SiadrJKr] (8 12 ), 
our author now proceeds (vv. 15f -) to show how Christ's sacrifice 
was necessary and efficacious under that 8ia0f|KT]. A sacrifice, 
involving death, is essential to any SiaOrJKr) : this principle, 
which applies to the new SkxOtjkt] (v. 15 ), is illustrated first 
generally (vv. 16 - 17 ) and then specifically, with reference to the 
former SiaG^KT] (vv. 18 " 22 ). 

15 He mediates a new covenant for this reason, that those who have been 
called may obtain the eternal inheritances they have been promised, now that a 
death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions involved in 
the first covenant. 16 Thus in the case of a will, the death of the testator must 
be announced. 17 A will only holds in cases of death, it is never valid so long 
as the testator is alive. 18 Hetice even the first (17 irpd>TT], sc. SiadrjKT] as in 9 1 ) 
covenant of God's will was not inaugurated apart from blood; 19 for after 
JMoses had announced every command in the Law to all the people, he took the 


blood of calves and goats, together with water, scarlet wool and hyssop, sprinkl- 
ing the book and all the people, and saying, 20 " This is the blood of that 
covenant which is God's command for you." 21 He even {koX . . . Si, only 
here in Heb. ) sprinkled with blood the tent and all the utensils of worship in 
the same way. 22 In fact, one might almost say that by Law everything is 
cleansed with blood. No blood shed no remission of sins ! 

The writer thus weaves together the idea of the new SiaGi^ 
(9 15 echoes 8 6 ) and the idea of sacrifice which he has just been 
developing. In v. 15 81a touto carries a forward reference (" now 
this is why Christ mediates a new 8ia0r)icr|, oiru? ktX."), as, e.g., 
in Xen. Cyrop. ii. 1. 21, 01 crvp.p.ayoi ovSe 6Y cv aAAo TpifftovTai rj 
07rws (xaxovvrai vTrep twv TpetpovTuiv. As the climax of the pro- 
mises in the new §ia6t)Kr) is pardon (8 12 ), so here its purpose is 
described as d-n-oXuTpcocn?, which obviously is equivalent to full 
forgiveness (Eph 1 ' rrjv airoXxiTpwcrtv Sid tov at/xaros avrov, rrjv 
acpecrLV twv TrapaTrTO)p.a.Twv). 'ATroXuTpwcnv twv . . . irapa(3d<Tewc is 

like Ka.6apLcrp.6v twv d/iaprtwv in i 3 . But pardon is only the 
means to fellowship, and the full scope of what has been pro- 
mised is still to be realized. Yet it is now certain ; the " bliss to 
be " is an eternal K\-qpovop.Ca, assured by Christ. Note that the 
em in eiri ty> irpajTT] 8ia0r)Kfl is not exactly temporal = " under," 
i.e. during the period of (cp. cirl o-ufTeXeta twv alwvwv in v. 213 ), but 
causal. The transgressions, which had arisen " in connexion 
with " the first S<.a0r/K>7, like unbelief and disobedience, are 
conceived as having taken their place among men ; they are the 
standing temptations of life towards God. The writer does not 
say, with Paul, that sin became guilt in view of the law, but 
this is near to his meaning ; with the first h)iadr]K-q sins started, 
the sins that haunt the People. They are removed, for the 
penitent, by the atoning death of Jesus, so that the People are 
now unencumbered. There is a similar thought in Ac 1388.88 
where Paul tells some Jews that through Jesus Christ vplv d<£eo-is 

ap.apTiwv KaTayyeXXerai, kou atro TravTwv wv ovk rjbvvrjOrjTt iv vop.w 
Mwvcrccos 8iKaiw8r]vai, iv tovtw 7rd? 6 iriarTtvwv SiKaiovTai. For the 
sake of emphasis, ttji' eTrayyeXiai/ is thrown forward, away from 
KXTipoyofjuas, like QdvaTov in the next verse. 

'ATroXvTpiooas, which in 1 1 38 is used in its non-technical sense of " release " 
from death (at the cost of some unworthy compliance), is used here in its LXX 
religious sense of a redemption which costs much, which can only be had at 
the cost of sacrifice. The primitive idea of " ransom " had already begun to 
fade out of it (cp. Dn 4 s2 ; Philo, quod omnis probus, 17), leaving " liberation" 
at some cost as the predominant idea (so in Clem. Alex. Strom vii. 56). 
Here it is a synonym for XvTpwcris (v. 12 ), or as Theophylact put it, for 
deliverance. But its reference is not eschatological ; the retrospective refer- 
ence is uppermost. 

For the first and only time he employs 01 K€K\r|p;eVoi to 
describe those whom he had already hailed as /cXr}creto<; iirovpaviov 

IX. 15, 16.] WILL AND COVENANT 1 27 

/xcVoxoi (3 1 ). To be " called " was indispensable to receiving 
God's boon (n 8 ), so that KeKXrj/xevoL here is an appropriate term 
for those who are no longer hampered by any obstacles of an 
inadequate pardon. The k^kXtju^oi are the faithful People ; 
" the objects of redemption are united in one category, for the 
One and Only Sacrifice is not of the sphere of time " (Wickham). 
It is not an aoristic perfect ( = kAt^i'tcs), as if the K^KX-q^ivoi 
were simply those under the old hia.6rjK.ri, though these are in- 
cluded, for the sacrificial death of Jesus has a retrospective value ; 
it clears off the accumulated offences of the past. The writer 
does not work out this, any more than Paul does in Ro 3 25f - ; but 
it may be implied in n 40 12 23 (see below), where the "perfecting" 
of the older believers is connected with the atonement. How- 
ever, the special point here of Oam-rou . . . -jrapapdcreww is that the 
death which inaugurates the new hiad-qKrj deals effectively with the 
hindrances left by the former BiadrjKrj. Not that this is its ex- 
clusive function. That the death inaugurates an order of grace 
in which forgiveness is still required and bestowed, is taken for 
granted (e.g. 4 16 ) ; but the «XT]poK)fjua, which from the beginning 
has been held out to the People of God, has only become attain- 
able since the sacrifice of Jesus, and therefore (a) his death 
avails even for those who in the past hoped for it, yet could not 
obtain it, and also (b) deals with the 7rapa/3ao-€is set up by the 
older SiaOrJKr] among men. 

But how was a death necessary to a SiadrjKrj? The answer 
is given in v. 16f - through a characteristic play on the term. In 
oirou yap (sc. £<ttl) SiaGi^KY) ktX. he uses 8ia6r]Krj as equivalent to 
" will " or testamentary disposition, playing effectively upon the 
double sense of the term, as Paul had already done in Gal 3 15f \ 
The point of his illustration (vv. 16 - 17 ) depends upon this; f3e|3cua 
and lcry^e.1 are purposely used in a juristic sense, applicable to 
wills as well as to laws, and 6 SiaOep-eeos is the technical term for 
" testator." The illustration has its defects, but only when it is 
pressed beyond what the writer means to imply. A will does 
not come into force during the lifetime of the testator, and yet 
Jesus was living ! True, but he had died, and died inaugurating 
a 8ia0r|KT) in words which the writer has in mind (v. 20 ) ; indeed, 
according to one tradition he had spoken of himself figuratively 
as assigning rights to his disciples (*dya) SiaTLde/xat. v/ju.v, Lk 2 2 29 ). 
The slight incongruity in this illustration is not more than that 
involved in making Jesus both priest and victim. It is a curious 
equivoque, this double use of 8ia6rji<r}, the common idea of 
both meanings being that benefits are " disponed," and that the 
8ia6r]Kr] only takes effect after a death. The continuity of argu- 
ment is less obvious in English, where no single word conveys 
the different nuances which ZiaOrfK-q bore for Greek readers. 


Hence in v. 18 some periphrasis like " the first covenant of God's 
will " is desirable. 

That 8ia9iiKT) in vv. 16, 17 is equivalent to "testamentary disposition," is 
essential to the argument. No natural interpretation of vv. 16 " 20 is possible, 
when dtadriKT] is understood rigidly either as " covenant " or as " will." The 
classical juristic sense is richly illustrated in the papyri and contemporary 
Hellenistic Greek, while the "covenant" meaning prevails throughout the 
LXX ; but Philo had already used it in both senses, and here the juristic sense 
of K\7]povofila (v. 15 ) paved the way for the juristic sense which v. 17 demands. 
The linguistic materials are collected, with a variety of interpretations, by 
Norton in A Lexicographical and Historical Study of Aiad-qicr) (Chicago, 
1908), Behm (Der Begriff AiadrjKT) itn Neuen Testament, Naumburg, 1912), 
Lohmeyer (Aiadr)K7i : ein Beitrag ztir Erkldrung des Neutestametitlichen 
Begriffs, Leipzig, 1913), and G. Vos in Princeton Theological Review 

(1915. pp- s 8 7 f - ; 1916. pp- J - 61 ). 

In v. 16 4>e'peo-0ai is "announced," almost in the sense of 
" proved " (as often in Greek) ; in v. 17 yA\ ttotc (cp. on ovttw in 2 8 ) 
is not equivalent to juiiru (nondum, vg) but simply means 
" never " (non unquam), as, e.g., in Eurip. Hipp. 823, ware /x^ttotc 
eKTTvevcrai irdXiv, fxv here following the causal particle «ret, like 
on in Jn 3 18 ; it had begun to displace oi in later Greek. 
Moulton quotes BGU. 530 (i A.D.), fi€fx<f>erai ere e7r(e)t fj.r) avri- 
•ypafas airrj, and Radermacher (171) suggests that the change 
was sometimes due to a desire of avoiding the hiatus. 'lax"" 
has the same force as in Gal 5 6 , cp. Tebt. P. 286 7 (ii a.d.) vow 
aSiKos [ou]8ev turyvei. Some needless difficulties have been felt 
with regard to the construction of the whole sentence. Thus 
(a) eirel . . . 8ia06p.efos might be a question, it is urged : " For 
is it ever valid so long as the testator is alive?" In Jn 7 26 
IxrjTroTe. is so used interrogatively, but there it opens the sen- 
tence. This construction goes back to the Greek fathers 
Oecumenius and Theophylact ; possibly it was due to the 
feeling that prjiroTe could not be used in a statement like this. 
(t?) Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 113) declares that iroTe is a 
corruption of totc (n from T, a stroke being added by accident), 
and that he found totc " ev 7raXaiots avrtypa^ots." Two old 
MSS (N* D*) do happen to preserve this reading, which is in 
reality a corruption of irort. 

Why, it may be asked, finally, does not the writer refer 
outright to the new hiaQiJKr) as inaugurated at the last supper? 
The reason is plain. Here as throughout the epistle he ignores 
the passover or eucharist. As a non-sacerdotal feast, the pass- 
over would not have suited his argument. Every Israelite was his 
own priest then, as Philo remarks {De Decalogo, 30, Tracrxa . . . 
iv 7] Ovovcri 7rav8r//x€i avrlLv £/cao"TOS Tors icpei? clvtCjv ovk avafxivovTv;, 
Uf)wavv7]v tov vo/xov \apicrafi.ivov t<3 Wvu iravri Kara fxiav rjfxepav 
ktX.). Hence the absence of a passover ritual from the entire 

IX. 17-19.] THE SINAI COVENANT 1 29 

argument of the epistle, and also perhaps his failure to employ 
it here, where it would have been extremely apt. 

Reverting now to the other and biblical sense of SiaflrjicY], the 
writer (vv. 18f ) recalls how the SiaOyKr) at Sinai was inaugurated 
with blood. "oQev — since 8ia6rJKr] and>; are correlative — 
ouSe t| TrpcuTY] (sc. SiaOrJKrj) X^P^S aijxoTOS efKeKCucio-TCu (the verb 
here and in io 20 being used in its ordinary LXX sense, e.g., 1 K 
II 14 eyKaivi'crco/xev 6K€t tt]v /SacriAeiaj/, I Mac 4 36 avafiwfAev KaOapiaaL 
to. ayta ko.1 ivKaivio-ai). This fresh illustration of death or blood 
being required in order to inaugurate a 8ia$rJKr], is taken from the 
story in Ex 24 3f -, but he treats it with characteristic freedom. 
Five points may be noted, (i) He inserts 1 to atua . . . tuv 
rpdyjiv, a slip which was conscientiously corrected by a number 
of MSS which omitted k<ji tw rpdyuv (N c K L * 5. 181. 203. 
242. 487. 489. 506. 623. 794. 917. 1311. 1319. 1739. 1827. 1836. 
1845. 1898. 2143) as well as by syr Origen and Chrysostom. 
Moses merely had p.oo-xapia slaughtered ; our author adds goats, 
perhaps because the full phrase had become common for OT 
sacrifices (see on v. 13 ). (ii) He inserts p.eTa u'Sa-ros *a! epi'ou 
KOKKikou Kal uo-o-wttou, as these were associated in his mind with 
the general ritual of sprinkling; water, hyssop, and scarlet 
thread (kokkivoi'), for example, he remembered from the de- 
scription of another part of the ritual in Nu 19. The water was 
used to dilute the blood ; and stems of a small wall plant called 
" hyssop " were tied with scarlet wool (KeicXwo-p.eVoi' kokki^oi') to 
form a sprinkler in the rite of cleansing a leper (Lv i4 6f ), or for 
sprinkling blood (Ex 12 22 ). But of this wisp or bunch there is 
not a word in Ex 24 3f \ (iii) Nor is it said in the OT that 
Moses sprinkled 2 au-ro t6 f3i|3\iot'. He simply splashed half of 
the blood 7rpo? to Ovo-iao-Trjpiov, koI XafSoiv to /?t/3Atov {i.e. the scroll 
containing the primitive code) ttjs &ia0T)KT|s, read it aloud to the 
people, who promised obedience ; whereupon Xafiwv 8e Mwvo-^s 
to ai/xa KaT€o-Ki8acrev tov Xaov kol enrev ktX.. An ingenious but 
impracticable attempt to correct this error is to take auTo tc to 
PipXtor with \af3wy, but the tc goes with the next Kal Train-a rbv 
Xaoi'. The fiifiXiov may have been included, since as a human 
product, for all its divine contents, it was considered to require 
cleansing ; in which case the mention of it would lead up to v. 21 , 
and o.ut6 tc t6 flifiXlov might be rendered "the book itself." 
This intensive use of airos occurs just below in auTa. rd eiroupdVia, 
But avros may be, according to the usage of Hellenistic Greek, 

1 In Triors ivroKris Kara rbv (om. N* K P) v6/j.ov ("lecto omni mandato 
legis," vg) the Kara means " throughout " rather than "by." 

2 For KarecTK^daaev he substitutes ippavriaev, from pavTifa, which is com- 
paratively rare in the LXX (Lv 6 27 , 2 K o. 33 . Ps 51 7 , Aquila and Symm. in 
Is 63 s , Aquila and Theodotion in Is 52 1B ). 



unemphatic, as, e.g., in n 11 koX airrj %dppa, Jn 2 24 avTos Se 6 
'I^o-oOs. (iv) In quoting the LXX l&ov to ai/z.a tt;s 8ia6r]Kr]<; rj<s 
SieOero Kvpios 7rpos vfAas ( = vplv), he changes iSou into tovto 
(possibly a reminiscence of the synoptic tradition in Mk 14 22 ), 
SUdero into ereTciXaTo (after ci/toXtjs in v. 19 ; but the phrase 
occurs elsewhere, though with the dative, e.g. Jos 23 16 ), and 
Kupios wpos v/xas into irpos 6 9eos. This is a minor altera- 
tion. It is more significant that, (v) following a later Jewish 
tradition, which reappears in Josephus (Ant. iii. 8. 6 [Moses 
cleansed Aaron and his sons] rrjv tc o-Krjvrjv ko.1 to. 7r€pi air-qv 
(TK€vr] i\aiu> tc TrpoOvfiiw/xevio Ka$ii)<; enrov, kcli tw cupari rtov Tavpwv 
*cai KpiZ>v <T<payevT(i>v kt\.), he makes Moses use blood to sprinkle 
the cncTjvT] and all tcI aKeoTj ttjs XeiToupyias (a phrase from 1 Ch 9 28 ). 
The account of Ex 4o 9 - 10 mentions oil only ; Josephus adds 
blood, because the tradition he followed fused the oil-dedication 
of the a-K-qvrj in Ex 4o 9, 10 with the (oil) sprinkling at the con- 
secration of the priests (Lv 8 10f -), which was followed by a blood- 
sprinkling of the altar alone. Philo had previously combined 
the oil-dedication of the a-KTjvrj with the consecration of the 
priests (vit. Mos. iii. 17); but he, too, is careful to confine any 
blood-sprinkling to the altar. Our author, with his predilection 
for blood as a cathartic, omits the oil altogether, and extends 
the blood to everything. 

This second illustration (vv. 18f -) is not quite parallel to the 
first ; the death in the one case is of a human being in the course 
of nature, in the other case of animals slaughtered. But atfia 
and Gd^a-ros were correlative terms for the writer. The vital 
necessity of alp.a in this connexion is reiterated in the summary 
of v. 22 . IxeSoe, he begins — for there were exceptions to the rule 
that atonement for sins needed an animal sacrifice (e.g. Lv 5 11 " 13 , 
where a poverty-stricken offender could get remission by present- 
ing a handful of flour, and Nu 3i 22f -, where certain articles, spoils 
of war, are purified by fire or water). But the general rule was 
that Trdin-a, i.e. everything connected with the ritual and every 
worshipper, priest, or layman, had to be ceremonially purified by 
means of blood (Ka0api£eTcu as the result of ippimtrev). The 
Greek readers of the epistle would be familiar with the similar 
rite of atpacnmv tovs /?a)/xous (Theokr. Epigr. i. 5, etc.). Finally, 
he sums up the position under the first 8ia6r]Kr} by coining a term 
alfjiaTeKxuaia (from eKx vcrts olp.aTo<i, i K 18 28 etc.) for the shedding 
of an animal victim's blood in sacrifice ; x w pis afjioT6KX«<rios ou 
yifeTai a^eais, i.e. even the limited pardon, in the shape of 
"cleansing," which was possible under the old order. "A^eo-is 
here as in Mk 3 129 has no genitive following, but the sense is 
indubitable, in view of io 18 ottou 8e a^eais tou'tui/ (i.e. of sins). 
The latter passage voices a feeling which seems to contradict the 


possibility of any forgiveness prior to the sacrifice of Christ (cp. 
9*5 io 4f ), but the writer knew from his bible that there had 
been an a</>€o-i9 under the old regime as the result of animal 
sacrifice ; Kal e^iXdaerai Trepl (or irepl t»Js a/xaprias) avrov 6 Upcv's 
. . . koX cupetfijo-eTcu avrw was the formula (cp. Lv 5 10, 16 - 18 etc.). 
The underlying principle of the argument is practically (cp. 
Introd., p. xlii) that laid down in the Jewish tract Joma v. 1 
("there is no expiation except by blood"), which quotes Lv 17 11 , 
a text known to the writer of Hebrews in this form : rj yap \\/vxq 
Trda~rj<; aapKos alp.a avrov eari'v, Kal eya> Se'ScoKa avro vplv liri tov 
6vcrLao~T7]piov ££i\do~Keo-6ai Trtpl tujv \pv)(piv vp.S)v" to yap al/xa avTOu 

dvTt T17S ifsvxr}<> e|iXdo-£rat. Blood as food is prohibited, since 
blood contains the vital principle ; as there is a mysterious potency 
in it, which is to be reserved for rites of purification and expiation, 
by virtue of the life in it, this fluid is efficacious as an atonement. 
The Greek version would readily suggest to a reader like our 
author that the piacular efficacy of at/m was valid universally, 
and that the atjxa or sacrificial death of Christ was required in 
order that human sin might be removed. Why such a sacrifice, 
why sacrifice at all, was essential, he did not ask. It was com- 
manded by God in the bible ; that was sufficient for him. The 
vital point for him was that, under this category of sacrifice, the 
alp.a of Christ superseded all previous arrangements for securing 

After the swift aside of v. 22 , the writer now pictures the 
appearance of Christ in the perfect sanctuary of heaven with the 
perfect sacrifice (vv. 25f -) which, being perfect or absolute, needs 
no repetition. 

28 Now, while the copies of the heavenly things had (avdyicr], sc. ty or 
iarlv) to be cleansed with sacrifices like these, the heavenly things themselves 
required nobler sacrifices. 24 For Christ has not entered a holy place which 
human hands have made (a mere type of the reality !) ; he has entered heaven 
itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it (sc. 
eicrrjXdev) to offer himself repeatedly, like the highpriest entering the holy place 
every year with blood that was not his own : 2S for in that case he would have 
had to suffer repeatedly ever since the world was founded. Nay, once for all, 
at the end of the world, he has appeared with his self-sacrifice to abolish sin. 

27 And just as it is appointed for men to die once and after that to be judged, 

28 so Christ, after being once sacrificed to bear the sins of many, will appear 
again, not to deal with sin, but for the saving of those who look out for him. 

The higher o-K-qv-q requires a nobler kind of sacrifice than its 
material copy on earth (v. 23 ). 1 This would be intelligible enough ; 

1 For av&yKTj . . . KaOapl^eadai an early variant was ivdyKy . . . 
ferai (D* 424** Origen), which Blass adopts. But our author prefers the 
nominative (v. 16 ) to the dative, and Kadapiferai is no more than a conforma- 
tion to the Kadapi^erai of v. 23 . The re, which some cursives (33. 1245. 2005) 
substitute for 5^ between airrd and to, iirovpavia, is due to alliteration. 


but when the writer pushes the analogy so far as to suggest that 
the sacrifice of Christ had, among other effects, to purify heaven 
itself, the idea becomes almost fantastic. The nearest parallel to 
this notion occurs in Col i 20 ; but the idea here is really unique, 
as though the constant work of forgiving sinners in the upper 
crKTjvr) rendered even that in some sense defiled. The slight 
touch of disparagement in toutois ( = tois akoyois, Theodoret) 
may be conveyed by "like these " or "such," and (Wuus is the 
plural of category (like veKpois in v. 17 ). After this passing lapse 
into the prosaic, the writer quickly recovers himself in a passage 
of high insight (vv. 24£ ) upon the nobler sacrifice of Jesus. In- 
deed, even as he compares it with the levitical sacrifices, its 
incomparable power becomes more and more evident. In v. 24 
( = vv. 1112 ) by dfTiTUTra twc aX^Ou/we he means a counterpart 
(avTiTvirov in reverse sense in 1 P 3 21 ) of reality (cp. 8 2 ), avTcruira 
being a synonym here for viroSeiyfxaTa, literally = "answering to 
the twos" which was shown to Moses (cp. 2 Clem. 14 3 ouSeis ovv 
to avTLTVTrov cpOeipas to avQzvTiKov [A€Ta\rjij/eTai). Christ has 
entered the heavenly sphere v\iv (emphatic, "now at last "= i 2 ) 
i\i.<\>av\.<j§r\vai ktX. In efJK^aciaOTJk'ai tw irpoo-cjirw tou 0eou (cp. Ps 
42 3 6(f>0r}o-ofjLai. t<3 Trpocruiiru tov deov) we have i/xcpavi^eiv used in 
its Johannine sense (i4 21 - 22 ), though passively as in Wis i 2 
(ifxcpaviltTai rots /xr/ irio~Ttvovo-iv auTw). But the appearance is 
before God on behalf of men, and the meaning is brought out in 
7 26 io 12f \ Christ's sacrifice, it is held, provides men with a 
close and continuous access to God such as no cultus could 
effect ; it is of absolute value, and therefore need not be re- 
peated (vv. 25 - 26 ), as the levitical sacrifices had to be. OuV Xva. 
TroXXdKis irpoo-^e'pT] eauTof] What is meant precisely by irpoo~<p£peiv 
iavTov here (as in v. 14 ) is shown by iraGeiK in v. 26 . "There is 
no difference between entering in and offering. The act of 
entering in and offering is one highpriestly act" (A. B. Davidson), 
and irpoa-cpiptiv kavTov is inseparably connected with the suffering 
of death upon the cross. The contrast between his self-sacrifice 
and the highpriest entering with aip-an dXXoTpt'w (as opposed to 
181'w, v. 12 ) is thrown in, as a reminiscence of vv. 7f -, but the writer 
does not dwell on this ; it is the aira£ (cp. v. 12 and 1 P 3 18 Xptoros 
vLTra£ irepl ajxapTidv a-rredavev) which engrosses his mind in v. 26 , eirei 
(" alioquin," vg) I'Sei (the aV being omitted as, e.g., in 1 Co 5 10 
€7T€t (i^eiAeTc . . . i£ekdelv) ktX. According to his outlook, there 
would be no time to repeat Christ's incarnation and sacrifice 
before the end of the world, for that was imminent ; hence he 
uses the past, not the future, for his reductio ad absurdum argu- 
ment. If Christ's sacrifice had not been of absolute, final value, 
i.e. if it had merely availed for a brief time, as a temporary 
provision, it would have had to be done over and over again in 


previous ages, since from the first sinful man has needed sacrifice j 
whereas the only time he was seen on earth was once, late in the 
evening of the world. It is implied that Christ as the Son of 
God was eternal and pre-existent ; also that when his sacrifice 
did take place, it covered sins of the past (see v. 15 ), the single 
sacrifice of Christ in our day availing for all sin, past as well as 
present and future. Had it not been so, God could not have 
left it till so late in the world's history ; it would have had to be 
done over and over again to meet the needs of men from the 
outset of history. Hwl 8e (logical, as in 8 6 , not temporal) eVi 
(ruireXeia (for which Blass arbitrarily reads Te'Aei) t£>v aldjvuv ( = cV 
i<rx<*Tov twv r)/x€pC)v tovtwv, i 2 ) kt\. IwTiktia is employed in its 
ordinary Hellenistic sense of " conclusion " (e.g. Test. Benj. xi. 3, 
la)? o-uvTcAeias tov aiaivos : Test. Levi X. 2, hri T77 a-WTeXua twv 
atwvwv); in Matthew's gospel, where alone in the NT it 
occurs, the genitive is tov atwvos. rie^avcpuTai, as in the 
primitive hymn or confession of faith (1 Ti 3 16 i<pavepw6r) ev 
crapKi) ; but the closest parallel is in 1 P i 20 Xpio-rou -npoiy- 
vwa/xevov fxkv trpb K.aTaf3o\r)s Koo-fxov, <pavepu)6evTQ<; 8k lir lcr)(dlrov 
twv x/3oVo>v. The object of the incarnation is, as in 2 9 , the 

The thought of the first "appearance" of Christ naturally 
suggests that of the second, and the thought of Jesus dying aira£ 
also suggests that men have to die aVa£ as well. Hence the 
parenthesis of w. 27 - 28 , for io 1 carries on the argument from g 26 . 
It is a parenthesis, yet a parenthesis of central importance for 
the primitive religious eschatology which formed part of the 
writer's inheritance, however inconsistent with his deeper views 
of faith and fellowship. "As surely as men have once to die 
and then to face the judgment, so Christ, once sacrificed for the 
sins of men, will reappear to complete the salvation of his own." 
'AiroKeiTai (cp. Longinus, de sublini. 9 7 o.XX' rjpuv fxkv Sva-Satfjiovov- 
uiv aTTOKeiTCLi \Lp.r]v Ka/caiv 6 #ava-ros, and 4 Mac 8 11 ovSlv vplv 
aTretOijcracnv TrXrjv tov fiera o-rpefikwv airodavelv aTTOKeiTcu) rots 
dvOpcijirois SiTa£ diro0a»'€ii'. The a7ra£ here is not by way of relief, 
although the Greeks consoled themselves by reflecting that 
they had not to die twice ; as they could only live once, they 
drew from this the conclusion that life must be "all the 
sweeter, as an experience that never can be repeated" (A. C. 
Pearson on Sophocles' Fragments, n. 67). But our author (see 
on 2 14 ) sees that death is not the last thing to be faced by 
men; fie-m Se touto Kpuns. This was what added serious- 
ness to the prospect of death for early Christians. The Greek 
mind was exempt from such a dread; for them death ended 
the anxieties of life, and if there was one thing of which 
the Greek was sure, it was that "dead men rise up never." 


Aeschylus, for example, makes Apollo declare (Eumenides, 647, 


avopos o €7T€toav at/A avacnracrr] kovis 
dira^ Oavovros, outis t<JT dvacrracrts. 

Even in the sense of a return to life, there is no dvaorao-is 
(Eurip. Heracles, 297; Alcestis, 1076; Supplices, 775). Kpuns in 
En I 7f * (*at K/aicris carat Kara. irdvTtov), as the context shows, is 
the eschatological catastrophe which spares the elect on earth, 
just as in En 5 6 , which parallels He q 28 , sinners are threatened 
thus : Tracnv vplv rots dyu.apTwA.ots ov^ virdp^ei (rwrrqpia dXXd €7rt 
irdvras v/xas KaraXucns, Kardpa. In io 27 below Kptais means the 
doom of the rebellious, but that is due to the context ; here it is 
judgment in general, to which all dfGp&nroi alike are liable (12 23 
Kpirrj 6zu> TravTuv). Only, some have the happy experience of 
Christ's return (v. 28 ), in the saving power of his sacrifice. There 
is (as in I P 2 24 ) an echo of Is 53 12 (kol airros d/iaprtas iroWuv 
avrjveyKev) in els to ttoXXwi' (cp. above On 2 10 ) dvei/eyKeif d/iapTias. 
npoo-ci/exOeis may be chosen to parallel men's passive experience 
of death. At any rate his suffering of death was vicarious suffer- 
ing ; he took upon himself the consequences and responsibilities 
of our sins. Such is the Christ who Ik SeuWpou 6<j>0r)o-eTai. In 
1 P 5 4 <J>ayepoGo-9ai is used of the second appearance as well as 
of the first, but our author prefers a variety (see on v. 26 ) of 
expression. The striking phrase x w pis dfiapTias rests on the idea 
that the one atonement had been final (cts dOirrjaiv t^s ap-aprUs), 
and that Christ was now KexcopiajxeVos diro tu>v djxapTcoXwi' (7 26 ). 
He is not coming back to die, and without death sin could not 
be dealt with. The homiletic (from 2 Ti 3 16 ) addition of 8id 
(t)}s, 161 1. 2005) morews, either after direKSexofA^ots (by 38. 68. 
218. 256. 263. 330. 436. 440. 462. 823. 1837 arm. etc.) or after 
awTTjpiaf (by A P 1245. 1898 syr hld ), is connected with the mis- 
taken idea that cts o-a>T-qptav goes with dTrc/cSt^o/xeVots (cp. Phil 3 20 ) 
instead of with d<j>9rjo-eTai. There is a very different kind of 
ckSoxt (io 27 ) for some SvOpmroi, even for some who once belonged 
to the People ! 

He now resumes the idea of 9 25, 26 , expanding it by showing 
how the personal sacrifice of Jesus was final. This is done by 
quoting a passage from the 40th psalm which predicted the 
supersession of animal sacrifices (vv. 5-10 ). The latter are in- 
adequate, as is seen from the fact of their annual repetition ; and 
they are annual because they are animal sacrifices. 

1 For as the Law has a mere shadow of the bliss that is to be, instead of 
representing the reality of that bliss, it never can perfect those who draw near 
with the same annual sacrifices that are perpetually offered. * Otherwise, 
they would have surely ceased to be offered ; for the worshippers, once cleansed, 
would no longer be conscious of sins ! s As it is, they are an annual reminder 


of sins * (for the blood of bulls and goats cannot possibly remove sins .'). 
* Hence, on entering the world he says, 

" Thou hast no desire for sacrifice or offering; 

it is a body thou hast prepared for me — 

6 in holocausts and sin-offerings (irepl afiaprlas as 13 11 ) thou 

takest no delight. 

7 So (rdre) I said, ' Here I come — in the roll of the book this 

is written of me — 
/ come to do thy will, O God.' " 

8 He begins by saying, ' ' Thou hast no desire for, thou takest no delight in, 
sacrifices and offerings and holocausts and sin-offerings" (and those are what 
are offered in terms of the Law) ; 9 he then (rdre) adds, " Here I come to do 
thy tvill." He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 
10 And it is by this ' ' will" that we are consecrated, because fesus Christ once 
for all has "offered" up his "body." 

This is the author's final verdict on the levitical cultus, 
"rapid in utterance, lofty in tone, rising from the didactic style 
of the theological doctor to the oracular speech of the Hebrew 
prophet, as in that peremptory sentence : ' It is not possible that 
the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.' The 
notable thing in it is, not any new line of argument, though that 
element is not wanting, but the series of spiritual intuitions it 
contains, stated or hinted, in brief, pithy phrases " (A. B. Bruce, 
np, 373, 374). In (nadr . . . ook eiicoVa tw TrpayfAdTaji' (v. 1 ) the 
writer uses a Platonic phrase (Cratylus, 306 E, et/cdvas w Trpay- 
[jLaroiv) ; eiKtuv ( - aX^Beta, Chrysostom) is contrasted with o-/ad 
as the real expression or representation of substance is opposed 
to the faint shadow. The addition of twv Trpayfidroiv ( = tw 
IxiXXovTwv ayaOuv) emphasizes this sense ; what represents solid 
realities is itself real, as compared to a mere o-iad. The iiAXoira 
dyaOd (9 11 ) are the boons and blessings still to be realized in 
their fulness for Christians, being thought of from the stand- 
point of the new ha6r}K-q, not of the Law. The Law is for 
the writer no more than the regulations which provided for the 
cultus ; the centre of gravity in the Law lies in the priesthood 
(7 11 ) and its sacrifices, not in what were the real provisions of 
the Law historically. The writer rarely speaks of the Law by 
itself. When he does so, as here, it is in this special ritual 
aspect, and what really bulks in his view is the contrast between 
the old and the new SiaO-qicr), i.e. the inadequate and the adequate 
forms of relationship to God. Once the former was superseded, 
the Law collapsed, and under the new SiaOrJKr] there is no new 
Law. Even while the Law lasted, it was shadowy and ineffective, 
i.e. as a means of securing due access to God. And this is the 
point here made against the Law, not as Paul conceived it, but 
as the system of atoning animal sacrifices. 

The text of v. 1 has been tampered with at an early stage, though the 
variants affect the grammar rather than the general sense. Unless Svvcltoi 


(D H K L ^ 2. 5. 35. 88. 181. 206. 226. 241. 242. 255. 326. 383. 429. 431. 
547. 623. 794. 915. 917. 927. 1311. 1518. 1739. 1827. 1836. 1845. 1867. 
1873. 1898. 2143 lat boh Orig. Chrys. Thdt. Oec.) is read for duvavrai, c 
v6/jlos is a hanging nominative, and an awkward anacolouthon results. Hort 
suggests that the original form of the text was : Kad' ■f/v /car iviavrbv ras auras 
Ovcrlas irpo<x<j)ipovcn.v, at eh rb SiyveKks ovMirore dvvavrai rovs irpocrepxo/J^vovs 
rekeiGxrai. As in 9 9 , /ca#' ijv (dropped out by a scribe accidentally, owing to 
the resemblance between KA0HN and ka0gn) would connect with a previous 
noun (here trici&v), <m similarly fell out before 61 (eic)j and AC was changed 
into Aic in the three consecutive words after iviavrbv. This still leaves 6 
v6fj.os without a verb, however, and is no improvement upon the sense gained 
either (a) by treating 6 v6(j.os as a nominative absolute, and Svvavrai as an 
irregular plural depending on at understood 1 from ducrlais ; or (b) by simply 
reading bijvarai (so Delitzsch, Weiss, Westcott, Peake, Riggenbach, Blass), 
which clears up everything. A desire to smooth out the grammar or to 
bring out some private interpretation may be underneath changes like the 
addition of avirciv after 6-ucriais (n P), or the substitution of avrCiv for aurats 
(69. 1319), or the omission of avrah altogether (2. 177. 206. 642. 920. 1518. 
1872), as well as the omission of #s (A 33. 161 1. 2005) or ats altogether, like 
the Syriac and Armenian versions, and the change of T«\eiu)<rai (reXewcrai, 
Blass) into Kadapivai (D vt). 

npoor^pouo-ie is an idiomatic use of the plural (Mt 2 20 nOvr)- 
Kacrw, Lk 1 2 20 aiToucriv), "where there is such a suppression of the 
subject in bringing emphasis upon the action, that we get the 
effect of a passive, or of French on, German man " (Moulton, i. 
58). The allusion is to the yearly sacrifice on atonement-day, 
for TTpoacfiepovo-iv goes with kcit cyiauToi', the latter phrase being 
thrown forward for the sake of emphasis, and also in order to 
avoid bringing els to 8ir|i'eK^s too near it. Eis to Si^vckcs also 
goes with Trpo<T(p£pov<Tiv, not (as in v. 14 ) with TtAeiow. OuSe'iroTe 
here as in v. 11 before SuVa^Tcu (never elsewhere in the epistle) is 
doubly emphatic from its position. The constant repetition of 
these sacrifices proves that their effect is only temporary ; they 
cannot possibly bring about a lasting, adequate relationship to 
God. So our author denies the belief of Judaism that atone- 
ment-day availed for the pardon of the People, a belief explicitly 
put forward, e.g., in Jub 5 17, 18 (" If they turn to Him in righteous- 
ness, He will forgive all their transgressions, and pardon all their 
sins. It is written and ordained that He will show mercy to all 
who turn from their guilt once a year "). He reiterates this in 
v. 2 , where eirei (as in 9 26 = alioquin) is followed by ouk, which 
implies a question. " Would they not, otherwise, have ceased 
to be offered ? " When this was not seen, either ouk was omitted 
(H* vg? syr 206. 1245. l 5 1 ^ Primasius, etc.), leaving av out of 
its proper place, or it was suggested — as would never have 
occurred to the author — that the OT sacrifices ceased to be valid 

1 It is inserted by A** 31. 366. 472. 1319 syr hkl arm. If the relative 
pronoun were assimilated, i.e. if ats (D* H L 5. 88. 257. 547, etc.) were read 
for 4s, the accidental omission of al would be more intelligible. 


when the Christian sacrifice took place. In ook av ittauaavro 
irpocr^>ep6fi.€vai (for construction see Gn n 8 eTravaavTO oIkoSo- 
fx.owTt's) the av is retained (see on q 26 ). KocaOapio-jiivous has 
been altered into KtKaddp/Atvovs (L), but KaOapi'Qn, not the Attic 
Ka.6a.1poi, is the general NT form. If our author spelt like his 
LXX codex, however, KeKa6epio-/xevov<; would be original (cp. 
Thackeray, 74). lucei'Snais is again used (9 9 ) in connexion with 
"the worshipper(s)," but the writer adds aiiapnCtv (i.e. sins still 
needing to be pardoned). For the genitive, compare Philo's 
fine remark in quod det. pot. 40, lKeTevwp.€v ovv tov 6*6v o\ 

avvci8rjo~€i twv oIkciwv dSiKr]p.dTO)v eXey^oyxevot, KoX.daai fidWov 

■qfxai r) irapelvai. In v. 3 dcd/xi'Tjais means that public notice had 
to be taken of such sins (" commemoratio," vg). 

There is possibly an echo here of a passage like Nu 5 1S (dv<ria fivri/jioavvov 
&vafiifivfi<TKov<ra afxaprlav), quoted by Philo in de Plant. 25 to illustrate his 
statement that the sacrifices of the wicked simply serve to recall their misdeeds 
(vwonifJivf)GKOV<Ta.i. ras eK&ffTwv dyvoias re Kal diafiaprlas). In vita Mosis, iii. 
10, he repeats this ; if the sacrificer ,was ignorant and wicked, the sacrifices 
were no sacrifices (. . . ov \vcnv dp.apm)p.dTuv, dXX' xnr6p.vri<nv ipyd^ovrai). 
What Philo declares is the result of sacrifices offered by the wicked, the 
author of Hebrews declares was the result of all sacrifices ; they only served 
to bring sin to mind. So in de Victimis, 7, eti-qdes yap -ras dvcrlas virdp-v-qaiv 
afiapTTifJUTUP d\\a fir/ \-qd-qv avrQv KaraffKevafeiv — what Philo declares absurd, 
our author pronounces inevitable. 

The ringing assertion of v. 4 voices a sentiment which would 
appeal strongly to readers who had been familiar with the 
classical and contemporary protests (cp. ERE. iii. 77o a ), against 
ritual and external sacrifice as a means of moral purification 
(see above on 9 13 ). 'Afyaipelv, a LXX verb in this connexion 

(e.g. Num 14 18 aupaipwv dvop.Ca<s Kal dSiKias Kal d/xaprias), becomes 

a.<pe\civ in L (so Blass), the aoristic and commoner form ; the 
verb is never used elsewhere in the NT, though Paul once 
quotes Is 27 s oVav d<pe\wfjLai d/xapnas (Ro 11 97 ). All this inherent 
defectiveness of animal sacrifices necessitated a new sacrifice 
altogether (v. 5 Sid), the self-sacrifice of Jesus. So the writer 
quotes Ps 40 7 " 9 , which in A runs as follows : 

Ovaiav Kal -irpoo~<popdv ovk ^OeXn/jaas, 

awfia 8e Karrjpricra) /xoi' 
o\oKavTu>p.aTa Kat irepi ap.apTias ovk e^T^cras. 

TOT€ €1770^' l8o\) TjKOi, 

(iv K€(pa\i$i /3l/3\iov y€ypa7TTai irept i/j-ov) 
tov iroirjo-ai to 6(.\rjp.d crov, 6 0eo5 /aov, rjfiovXrjOrpr. 
Our author reads ev86i<i)<ras for i^r^tyas, 1 shifts 6 0e6s (omitting (jlov) to 

1 Which is replaced in the text of Hebrews by ^ (iK^rp-rjireis) 623*. 1836. 
The augment spelling T]v56Kri<ras reappears here as occasionally at v. 8 in a 
small group (A C D* W, etc.), and the singular Ov<rlai> k. irpoacpopdv is kept 
at v. 8 by iCD'KLW, etc. 


a position after voirjcrai., in order to emphasize t6 6£\r)fid <rov, and by omitting 
ifiovMiOrpi (replaced by W in v. 7 ), connects rod iroirjirat closely with tjku. 
A recollection of Ps 51 18 ei r)di\rj<Ta.s dvalav . . . oXo/cat/rci/mra owe evfioK-qaeis 
may have suggested evddKrjcras, which takes the accusative as often in LXX. 
Ke<pa\Ls is the roll or scroll, literally the knob or tip of the stick round which 
the papyrus sheet was rolled (cp. Ezek 2 9 Ke<f>a\U /3t/3\/ou). 

This is taken as an avowal of Christ on entering the world, 
and the LXX mistranslation in awp.a is the pivot of the argu- 
ment. The more correct translation would be a>Tia 6V, for the 
psalmist declared that God had given him ears for the purpose 
of attending to the divine monition to do the will of God, 
instead of relying upon sacrifices. Whether una was corrupted 
into crwfxa, or whether the latter was an independent translation, 
is of no moment ; the evidence of the LXX text is indecisive. 
Our author found 0-w/m in his LXX text and seized upon it; 
Jesus came with his body to do God's will, i.e. to die for the 
sins of men. The parenthetical phrase iv Ke<f><*\iSi |3(.p\iou 
y^ypairrai irep! cp-ou, which originally referred to the Deutero- 
nomic code prescribing obedience to God's will, now becomes 
a general reference to the OT as a prediction of Christ's higher 
sacrifice ; that is, if the writer really meant anything by it (he 
does not transcribe it, when he comes to the interpretation, 
vv. 8f -). Though the LXX mistranslated the psalm, however, it 
did not alter its general sense. The Greek text meant practically 
what the original had meant, and it made this interpretation 01 
application possible, namely, that there was a sacrifice which 
answered to the will of God as no animal sacrifice could. Only, 
our author takes the will of God as requiring some sacrifice. 
The point of his argument is not a contrast between animal 
sacrifices and moral obedience to the will of God; it is a 
contrast between the death of an animal which cannot enter into 
the meaning of what is being done, and the death of Jesus which 
means the free acceptance by him of all that God requires for 
the expiation of human sin. To do the will of God is, for our 
author, a sacrificial action, which involved for Jesus an atoning 
death, and this is the thought underlying his exposition and 
application of the psalm (vv. 8-10 ). In v. 8 dywrepoy is "above" or 
" higher up " in the quotation (v. 6 ). The interpretation of the 
oracle which follows is plain ; there are no textual variants worth 
notice, 1 and the language is clear. Thus eiprjKee in v. 9 is the 
perfect of a completed action, = the saying stands on record, and 
dycupe! has its common juristic sense of " abrogate," the opposite 
of IcTT-qfxi. The general idea is : Jesus entered the world fully 
conscious that the various sacrifices of the Law were unavailing 
as means of atonement, and ready to sacrifice himself in order 

1 The vocative 6 0e6s is sometimes repeated after iroirjaai by k c L 104. 
1288. 1739 vg syr 1,kl and P esh etc., or after <rov (e.g. I. 1311 had, arm). 

X. 9, 10.] THE FINAL SACRIFICE 1 39 

to carry out the redeeming will of God. God's will was to 
bring his People into close fellowship with himself (2 10 ); this 
necessitated a sacrifice such as that which the croifxa of Christ 
could alone provide. The triumphant conclusion is that this 
divine will, which had no interest in ordinary sacrifices, has been 
fulfilled in the irpoo^opd of Christ ; what the Law could not do 
(v. 1 ) has been achieved by the single self-sacrifice of Christ; it 
is by what he suffered in his body, not by any animal sacrifices, 
that we are irjYiacrp.€Voi (v. 10 ). Jesus chose to obey God's will ; 
but, while the Psalmist simply ranked moral obedience higher 
than any animal sacrifice, our writer ranks the moral obedience 
of Jesus as redeemer above all such sacrifices. " Christ did not 
come into the world to be a good man : it was not for this that 
a body was prepared for him. He came to be a great High 
Priest, and the body was prepared for him, that by the offering 
of it he might put sinful men for ever into the perfect religious 
relation to God" (Denney, The Death of Christ, p. 234). 

In conclusion ( n - 18 ) the writer interprets ( n " 14 ) a phrase which 
he has not yet noticed expressly, namely, that Christ sat down 
at the right hand of God (i 3 - 13 ); this proves afresh that his 
sacrifice was final. Then, having quoted from the pentateuch 
and the psalter, he reverts to the prophets ( 15 ' 18 ), citing again 
the oracle about the new BiaOrjicr} with its prediction, now fulfilled, 
of a final pardon. 

11 Again, while every priest stands daily at his service, offering the same 
sacrifices repeatedly , sacrifices which never can take sins away — 12 He offered 
a single sacrifice for sins and then " seated himself" for all time "at the 
right hand of God," ls to wait " until his enemies are made a footstool for his 
feet. " 14 For by a single offering he has made the sanctified perfect for all 
time. 1S Besides, we have the testimony of the holy Spirit ; for after saying, 
is «< This is the covenant I will make with them when that day comes, 
saith the Lord, 
I will set my laws upon their hearts, 
inscribing them upon their minds," 

he adds, 

17 " And their sins and breaches of the law I will remember no more." 
18 Now where these are remitted (8.<pe<ris, as 9 22 ), an offering for sin exists (sc. 
fori) no longer. 

One or two textual difficulties emerge in this passage. In v. 11 tepcv? was 
altered (after 5 1 8 3 ) into dpxiepeh (A C P 5. 69. 88. 206. 241. 256. 263. 436. 
462. 467. 489. 623. 642. 794. 917. 920. 927. 999. 1836. 1837. 1898 syr hU * 
sah arm eth Cyr. Cosm.). In v. 12 av-ros (KL 104. 326 boh Theod. Oec. 
Theophyl.) is no improvement upon ovtos. A curious variant (boh Ephr. ) 
in the following words is iavrbv /zkw virkp a/xapriwu Trpoaeviyicas dvalav. 
In v. 14 boh ("for one offering will complete them, who will be sanctified, 
for ever") appears to have read /juo. yap Trpoa<pop6. (so Bgl.) reXeiwiret kt\. 
In v. 16 t«ov Siavoiwv is read by K L ^ d r syr sah boh arm. 

The decisive consideration in favour of tepeus (v. 11 ) is not that 


the apxiepws did not sacrifice daily (for the writer believed this, 
see on 7 27 ), but the adjective ttos. riepieXeiv is a literary synonym 
for &<f>atpeie (v. 4 ); there is no special emphasis in the verb here 
any more than, e.g., in 2 Co 3 16 , for the (Zeph 3 15 -jrepielXe Kvpios 
ra aSLK^fx-ard aov) metaphorical idea of stripping no longer 
attached to the term, and the irept had ceased to mean " entirely " 
or "altogether." The contrast between this repeated and in- 
effective ritual of the priests and the solitary, valid sacrifice of 
Jesus is now drawn in v. 12 , where els to oujveKe's goes more 
effectively with iKaQiaev than with TrpocrcyeYKas Quaiav, since the 
idea in the latter collocation is at once expressed in v. 14 At the 
opening of the writer's favourite psalm (no 1 ) lay a promise of 
God to his Son, which further proved that this sacrifice of Christ 
was final : 

£ITT€V 6 KVpiOS TW KVpitp /U.OV K(£#OU CK Se£lCOV p.OV 

fo)S olv $10 tous i)(9pov<i uov viroir6?>ioY twv iroouiV <rov. 

Kddov — a unique privilege ; so Christ's priestly sacrifice must be 
done and over, all that remains for him being to await the sub- 
mission and homage of his foes. As for the obedient (5 s ), they 
are perfected " finally," i.e. brought into the closest relation to 
God, by what he has done for them ; no need for him to stand 
at any priestly service on their behalf, like the levitical drudges ! 
The contrast is between iKaQurev and i<m]Kev (the attitude of a 
priest who has to be always ready for some sacrifice). Who the 
foes of Christ are, the writer never says. 1 This militant metaphor 
was not quite congruous with the sacerdotal metaphor, although 
he found the two side by side in the 110th psalm. If he inter- 
preted the prediction as Paul did in 1 Co i5 25f -, we might think 
of the devil (2 14 ) and such supernatural powers of evil; but this 
is not an idea which is worked out in ripos c Ej3pcuous. The 
conception belonged to the primitive messianic faith of the 
church, and the writer takes it up for a special purpose of his 
own, but he cannot interpret it, as Paul does, of an active reign of 
Christ during the brief interval before the end. Christ must 
reign actively, Paul argues. Christ must sit, says our writer. 

The usual variation between the LXX 4k 5e£iuw and Iv 8e|i<f is reproduced 
in ITpds 'Eppaiovs: the author prefers the latter, when he is not definitely 
quoting from the LXX as in iX As this is a reminiscence rather than a 
citation, 4v 8e£i$ is the true reading, though 4k de^iQv is introduced by A 104 
Athanasius. The theological significance of the idea is discussed in Dr. A. 
J. Tait's monograph on The Heavenly Session of our Lord (1912), in which 
he points out the misleading influence of the Vulgate's mistranslation of io 12 
( " hie autem unam pro peccatis offerens hostiam in sempiternum sedit ") upon 
the notion that Christ pleads his passion in heaven. 

1 In Clem. Rom. 36 s - 6 they are ol <pa,0\oi Kal avriraao-b^evoi. t$ 6e\rj/j.aTi 

X. 15-19.] THE FINAL APPEAL 141 

After reiterating the single sacrifice in v. 14 (where too? &yia£o- 
fieVous is "the sanctified," precisely as in 2 11 ), he adds (v. 15 ) an 
additional proof from scripture. Map-rupee 8e ica! to iTccujia 
to ayioc, a biblical proof as usual clinching the argument. 'H}ilv 
is " you and me," " us Christians," not the literary plural, as if 
he meant " what I say is attested or confirmed by the inspired 
book." MapTupelf is a common Philonic term in this connexion, 
e.g. Leg. Alleg. iii. 2, p,aprvptl Sk ko.1 iv cTepots Ae'yojv ktA,. (intro- 
ducing Dt 4 39 and Ex 17 6 ); similarly in Xen. Mem. i. 2. 20, 
fxaprvptl Se /cat twv TroirjTwv 6 Acywv. The quotation, which is 
obviously from memory, is part of the oracle already quoted 
upon the new SiaOrJKr) (8 8 - 12 ) ; the salient sentence is the closing 
promise of pardon in v. 17 , but he leads up to it by citing some 
of the introductory lines. The opening, /acto yap to clprjiceVai, 
implies that some verb follows or was meant to follow, but the 
only one in the extant text is Xe'yei Ku'pios (v. 16 ). Hence, before 
v. 17 we must understand something like fiaprvpel or Ae'yci or 
TrpocreOrjKev koll (ftrja-tv (Oecumenius) or Tore elprjKev, although the 
evidence for any such phrase, e.g. for varepov Aiyci (31. 37. 55. 
67. 71. 73. 80. 161) is highly precarious. In v. 17 
has been corrected into fivrjaOu by K C D C KL P, etc., since 
was the LXX reading and also better grammar, the future after 
00 |xt] being rare (cp. Diat. 2255, and above on 8 11 ). The oracle, 
even in the LXX version, contemplates no sacrifice whatever 
as a condition of pardon; but our author (see above, p. 131) 
assumes that such an absolute forgiveness was conditioned by 
some sacrifice. 

The writer now (io 19 -i2 29 ) proceeds to apply his arguments 
practically to the situation of his readers, urging their privileges 
and their responsibilities under the new order of religion which 
he has just outlined. In 10 19 - 31 , which is the first paragraph, 
encouragement (vv. 19 " 25 ) passes into warning ( 26 - 31 ). 

19 Brothers (&8e\(pol, not since 3 1 - 12 ), since we have confidence to enter the 
holy Presence in virtue of the blood of Jesus, *> by the fresh, living way which 
he has inaugurated for us through the veil {that is, through his flesh), 21 and 
since we have "a great Priest over the house of God," 22 let us draw near with 
a true heart, in absolute assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean from 
a bad conscience, and our bodies washed in pure water ; M let us hold the hope 
we avow without wavering {for we can rely on him ivho gave us the Promise) ; 
24 and let us consider how to stir one another up to love and good deeds— - 2B not 
ceasing to meet together, as is the habit of some, but admonishing one another 
(sc. eavrovs, as 3 13 ), all the more so, as you see the Day coming near. 

The writer (e'xorres ouv) presses the weighty arguments of 
620_ Io i8 } but ne returns with them to reinforce the appeal of 
3 a -4 16 ; after io 19-21 the conception of Jesus as the tcpevs falls 
more into the background. The passage is one long sentence, 


e'xocTes . . . TrpoCT€pxw(i.e0a . . . tcaTe'xwp.ek . . . koi Ka.TavoCjp.ei> 
. . . "Exotics oui/ (as in 4 14 ) since the way is now open (9 s ) 
through the sacrifice of Jesus, whose atoning blood is for us the 
means of entering God's presence ; irappr]criav, " a fre sure 
intraunce" (Coverdale), echoing 4 16 . But the writer fills out 
the appeal of 4 14 - 16 with the idea of the sanctuary and the 
sacrifice which he had broken off, in 5 lf -, to develop. Though 
the appeal still is irpoo-epxcSfieGa ( 23 = 4 16 ), the special motives are 
twofold : (a) -napp^aia for access in virtue of the sacrifice of Jesus 
(vv. 19 - 20 ), and (l>) the possession of Jesus as the supreme tepeu's 
(v. 21 ). (a) The religious sense of Trapprjcria emerges in the early 
gloss inserted after Sir 18 29 : 

Kpeicrcrwv irappyio-ia iv Sea-irorr} fxovta 
■fj veKpa KapSia. veKp&v avre^ecrOai. 

Here irapprja-ia means confident trust, the unhesitating adherence 
of a human soul to God as its only Master, but our author 
specially defines it as irapprjaia els (cp. 2 P i 11 17 euroSos €ts tt)v 
aiwviov ySao-iXetav) cTaoSoy (with gen. as 68ov in g s , but not a 
synonym for 680V), i.e. for access to (t£>v dyiwi') the holy Presence, 
iv tu cupcm 'Itjctou (qualifying cto-oSov). 1 This resumes the 
thought of 9 24 " 26 io 10-12 (iv ai/Aart as in 9 25 ). Compare for the 
phrase and general idea the words on the self-sacrifice of Decius 
Mus in Florus, i. 15. 3 : "quasi monitu deorum, capite uelato, 
primam ante aciem dis manibus se devoverit, ut in confertissima 
se hostium tela iaculatus nouum ad uictoriam iter sanguinis sui 
semita aperiret." This cio-oSos twv dyt'wv iv ™ cu/iai-i 'I-qaov is 
further described in v. 20 ; we enter by (rjv, with 68ov . . . £coo-av 
in apposition) a way which Jesus has inaugurated by his sacrifice 
(9 18 - 2i - 25 ). This way is called recent or fresh and also living. 
In Trp6or<{>aTos, as in the case of other compounds (e.g. KcAatvcep^s), 
the literal sense of the second element had been long forgotten 
(cp. Holden's note on Plutarch's Themistocles, 24) ; 7rpdo-<£aTos 
simply means "fresh," without any sacrificial allusion ("freshly- 
killed"). Galen (de Hipp, et Plat. plac. iv. 7) quotes the well- 
known saying that \virr) icrrl 86£a 7rpdo-<£aTos kolkov 7rapowias, 
and the word (i.e. to dpi-icos ywofxevov, veov, veapov, Hesychius), as 
is plain from other passages like Arist. Magna Moralia, 1203^ 
(6 €K tt}? 7rpo(T<pdTov <^>avTao-ias d/cpar^s ktX.), and Eccles I 9 (ovk 
Zcttlv irav irpoo-^arov viro tov rjXiov), had no longer any of the 
specific sacrificial sense suggested etymologically by its second 
part. It is the thought of exit's in 13 8 , though the writer means 

1 Hence the idea is not put in quite the same way as in Eph 3 12 (£i> <£ 
ZxofJ-ev T V" irappTjaLav Kal tt)v irpoaaywy-qv). In Sir 25 2S fnjde (5ys) yvvaucl 
Trovqpy i^ovaiav, k A read irapprjclav for B's i^ovcrlav, which proves how deeply 
the idea of liberty was rooted in irapp-qvla. 

X. 20-24.] THE VEIL 143 

particularly (as in i 1 " 2 9 8 - 11 ) to suggest that a long period had 
elapsed before the perfect fellowship was inaugurated finally ; it 
is 7rpdo-^>aTos, not apxcuos. Zuxrav means, in the light of 7 25 (cp. 
Jn 14 6 ), that access to God is mediated by the living Christ in 
virtue of his sacrificial intercession ; the contrast is not so much 
with what is transient, as though £wo-av were equivalent to fxevova-av 
(Chrysostom, Cosm. 415a), as with the dead victims of the 
OT cultus or " the lifeless pavement trodden by the highpriest " 
(Delitzsch). He entered God's presence thus Sid toG KaTcnT€- 
Tdo-jxaTos (6 19 9 s ), tout €(mv tou crapicos auToG — a ritual expression 
for the idea of 6 19 . Aid is local, and, whether a verb like 
elaekQuv is supplied or not, 81a t. k. goes with iveKalviaev, the idea 
being that Jesus had to die, in order to bring us into a living 
fellowship with God ; the shedding of his blood meant that he 
had a body (io 5-10 ) to offer in sacrifice (cp. 9 14 ). The writer, 
however, elaborates his argument with a fresh detail of 
symbolism, suggested by the ritual of the tabernacle which he 
has already described in 9 2£ . There, the very existence of a veil 
hanging between the outer and the inner sanctuary was interpreted 
as a proof that access to God's presence was as yet imperfectly 
realized. The highpriest carried once a year inside the veil the 
blood of victims slain outside it ; that was all. Jesus, on the 
other hand, sheds his own blood as a perfect sacrifice, and thus 
wins entrance for us into the presence of God. Only, instead of 
saying that his sacrificial death meant the rending of the veil 
(like the author of Mk 15 38 ), i.e. the supersession of the OT 
barriers between God and man, he allegorizes the veil here as 
the flesh of Christ ; this had to be rent before the blood could 
be shed, which enabled him to enter and open God's presence 
for the people. It is a daring, poetical touch, and the parallelism 
is not to be prosaically pressed into any suggestion that the 
human nature in Jesus hid God from men Iv tcus Tju.e'pcus rfis 
o-apKos auToG, or that he ceased to be truly human when he 
sacrificed himself. 

The idea already suggested in i&crav is now (b) developed 
(in V. 21 ) by (Ixodes) *a! lepe'a piyav eirl Toy oiKOf toG 0eoG, another 
echo of the earlier passage (cp. 3 1 " 6 4 14 ), tepeus pe'yas being a 
sonorous LXX equivalent for dpxupev?. Then comes the triple 
appeal, Trpocrepxwp.€0a . . . KdTe'xwu.ei' . . . koi\i.zv . . . 
The metaphor of Trpoo-epxwu.€0a kt\. (v. 22 ), breaks down upon the 
fact that the Israelites never entered the innermost shrine, except 
as represented by their highpriest who entered once a year iv 
aipcm dXXoTptw (9 7 - 25 ), which he took with him in order to atone 
for the sins that interrupted the communion of God and the 
people. In ripos c E|3paious the point is that, in virtue of the 
blood of Christ, Christians enjoy continuous fellowship with 


God; the sacrifice of Christ enables them to approach God's 
presence, since their sins have been once and for all removed. 
The entrance of the OT highpriest therefore corresponds both 
to the sacrifice of Christ and to that access of Christians which 
the blood of Christ secures. On the one hand, Christ is our high- 
priest (v. 21 ) ; through his self-sacrifice in death the presence of 
God has been thrown open to us (vv. 19 - 20 ). This is the primary 
thought. But in order to express our use of this privilege, the 
writer has also to fall back upon language which suggests the 
entrance of the OT highpriest (cp. v. 19 iv tu> cuucm 'Itjo-ou with 
9 25 ). He does not mean that Christians are priests, with the 
right of entry in virtue of a sacrifice which they present, but, 
as to approach God was a priestly prerogative under the older 
order, he describes the Christian access to God in sacerdotal 
metaphors. npocrcpxcoueGa is one of these. It is amplified first 
by a fie-rd clause, and then by two participial clauses. The 
approach to God must be whole-hearted, jxcTa dXtiGie^s icapSias, 1 
without any hesitation or doubt, iv irXY]po<|>opta (6 11 ) moreus. 2 
This thought of ttLvtis as man's genuine answer to the realities 
of divine revelation, is presently to be developed at length 
(io 38f -). Meantime the writer throws in the double participial 
clause, pepakTiapicVoi . . . KaOapu. The metaphors are sacer- 
dotal ; as priests were sprinkled with blood and bathed in water, 
to qualify them for their sacred service, so Christians may 
approach God with all confidence, on the basis of Christ's 
sacrifice, since they have been pepavTicrp,eVoi {i.e. sprinkled and 
so purified from — a frequent use of the verb) d-n-6 owciS^crews 
iro^pas ( = crweiS^creios a/xapTLwv, io 2 ) in their hearts (tois icapSias 
— no external cleansing). Then the writer adds, kcu XeXouo-p.eVoi 
to o-wp,a uSa-ri ica0apu>, suggesting that baptism corresponded to 
the bathing of priests (e.g. in Lev 16 4 ). Once and for all, at 
baptism (cp. i P 3 21 ), Christians have been thus purified from 
guilty stains by the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice. 3 What room 
then can there be in their minds for anything but faith, a confident 
faith that draws near to God, sure that there is no longer 
anything between Him and them ? 

The distinctive feature which marked off the Christian 
j3airn.crp.6s from all similar ablutions (6 2 9 10 ) was that it meant 
something more than a cleansing of the body ; it was part and 
parcel of an inward cleansing of the /capSid, effected by to atua 

1 The phrase £v AXydivrj Kapdlq. occurs in Test. Dan 5 3 {v. I. KaOapq.) and in 
Is 38 s (iv. k. d.). 

2 There is a verbal parallel in the account of Isis-worship given by 
Apuleius {Metamorph. xi. 28: " ergo igitur cunctis adfatim praeparatis . . . 
principalis dei nocturnis orgiis inlustratus, plena iatn fiditcia germanae 
religionis obsequium diuinum frequentabam "). 

* More specifically, by the aXp.a. pavriff/xov of I2 24 . 

X. 23.] PURITY 145 

ttjs Sia6rJKT|s (v. 29 ). 1 Hence this as the vital element is put first, 
though the body had also its place and part in the cleansing ex- 
perience. The KapSia and the a-wfxa are a full, plastic expression 
for the entire personality, as an ancient conceived it. Ancient 
religious literature 2 is full of orders for the penitent to approach 
the gods only after moral contrition and bodily cleansing, with a 
clean heart and a clean body, in clean clothes even. But, apart 
from other things, such ablutions had to be repeated, while the 
Christian Pcnrrurfios was a single ceremony, lying at the source and 
start of the religious experience. And what our author is think- 
ing of particularly is not this or that pagan rite, but the OT 
ritual for priests as described in Ex 29 20f -, Lv 8 23t i4 5f - etc. (cp. 
Jotna 3). 

Three specimens of the anxious care for bodily purity in ancient religious 
ritual may be given. First (i) the ritual directions for worship in Syll. 567 
(ii A.D. ) : irp&Tov fiev Kal rb p-iyio-rov , x € ?P a s Ka ^ yufJ-V Kadapovs Kal vyiels 
virdpxovTas Kal fMr/dev avrois deivbv <rwei56ras. Second (ii) the stress laid on 
it by a writer like Philo, who {quod deus sit immutabilis, 2), after pleading 
that we should honour God by purifying ourselves from evil deeds and 
washing off the stains of life, adds : koX yap ev-qOes els fiev to. lepa /jlt] ^elvai 
j3adi£eiv, 3s dv p.rj irpdrepov Xovad/xevos (paidpvvriTai rb <rwfia, eiixeo-dai de Kal 
6veiv iinxeipeiv £ti KrjXtdwfxivg Kal ire<t>vpp.£vr) biavola. His argument is that 
if the body requires ablutions (TrepippavTrjpiois Kal Ka0apalot.s ayvevriKois) 
before touching an external shrine, how can anyone who is morally impure 
draw near (irpoaeXdeiv ry 0eui) the most pure God, unless he means to 
repent ? '0 fiev yap Trpbs t£ fi7]8ev iire^epydcaadai KaKbv Kal to. iraXaia iKvi\pao~- 
6ai 8iKaiw<xas yeyrjOus TvpoaWui [cp. He io 19, 22 ], 6 5' tivev tovtuv ducrKadapros 
u>f a<f>LUTaa6oi' XrjcreTai yap ovbtwore rbv to. iv /jlvxois ttjs oiavoias opwvra [cp. 
He 4 13 ] Kal rois dSvrois avrijs ifnrepnraTovvTa. Or again in de Plant. 39 : 
<x<j}fj.ara Kal \pvxas Kad-qpdfxevoi, ra fiev Xovrpols, ra Se v6/xwv Kal 7rcu5«as bpdrjs 
peu/j-aat. In de Cherub. 28 he denounces the ostentatious religion of the 
worldlv, who in addition to their other faults, t& jiiv o-w/xara Xovrpoh Kal 
Kadapalois diroppvirTOVTai, to. de \pvxys iKvl^acrdai irddrj, oh KarappviraiveTai 6 
/St'os, ovre j3o6\ovrai oilre eTriTT]8evov<n, are very particular about their outward 
religious practices 3 but careless about a clean soul. Finally, (iii) there is the 
saying of Epictetus (iv. 10. 3) : inel yap iKeivoi (i.e. the gods) <pv<xei Kadapol 
Kal dKrjparoi, i<p' bo~ov TjyylKaaiv avrois ol dvd'puTroi Kara rbv \6yov, iirl toctovtov 
Kal tov Kadapov Kal rod Kadaptov elalv dvdeKTiKol. 

For the exceptional pepavrLcr/j-ivoL (n* A C D*), H c D° etc. have substituted 
ippavTLapAvot. (so Theodoret). The Xe\ovap.ivoi of x B D P is the more 
common koivtj form of the Attic \e\ovp.ivoi (A C D° etc.). 

The next appeal (v. 23 ), Kcrre'xwfJiei' Tr\v ofj.oXoyiai' ttjs e\m8os 
(to which N* vg pesh eth add the gloss of ^w), echoes 4 14 

1 T6 alp.a ttjs diad-qK-qs iv y ■qyidadq, as I Co 6 U dAXa dire\ovcrao-de, d\\a 

2 Cp. Eugen Fehrle's Die Kultische Keuschheit im Altertum (1910), pp. 
26 f., 131 f. ; Sir J. G. Frazer's Adonis, Attis, Osiris (1907), pp. 407 f. 

8 According to a recently discovered (first century) inscription on a 
Palestinian synagogue (cp. Revue Biblique, 1921, pp. 247 f. ), the synagogue 
was furnished with rbv ^evdva (for hospitality, cp. below, 13 2 ) Kal rd xPV a " T V- 
pia tG>v vddruv (baths for ritual ablutions). 



( tt}s o/xoXoyias) and 3 6 (eav rrjv ira.ppr)o~ia.v Kai to 

Kavx r ll Jia T *? s ^ 7rt '^°5 • • • Ka.Ta.(Tx<»p-zv). This hope for the future 
was first confessed at baptism, and rests upon God's promise 1 
(as already explained in 6 17 - 18 ). It is to be held aicXi^s, a term 
applied by Philo to the word of a good man (6 yap tov a-rrovSaiov, 
<prj(TL, Xdyos o/3kos ectw, /3ej3aio<;, aK/Uvrys, di/^vSeoraTOS, ^prjptio- p.ivo'i 
aXyjOeca, de Spec. Leg. ii. 1); in Irenaeus it recurs in a similar 
connexion (i. 88, ed. Harvey : 6 tov kolvovo. rijs a\r)$eias d/cXtv^ 
ev eauTw KaTe^wv, ov Sid tov i3airTi.o-p,o.TO% ciXij^e). The old 
Wycliffite version translates finely : " hold we the confessioun of 
oure hope bowynge to no side." The close connexion between 
pepa^TiCTfjieVoc kt\. and XeXouo-pveVoi ktX. makes it inadvisable to 
begin the second appeal with icai XeXouo-fjicVoi to aalfjia uSa-ri icaOapw 
(Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Lachmann, Lunemann, von Soden, B. 
Weiss, etc.). A more plausible suggestion, first offered by 
Theodoret and adopted recently by Hofmann and Seeberg, is to 
begin the second appeal after mo-Tews, making carry 
pepcunao-fieVoi . . . KaGapu. This yields a good sense, for it 
brings together the allusions to the baptismal confession. But 
the ordinary view is more probable ; the asyndeton in Karexwixev 
is impressive, and if it is objected that the KaTex^/xiv clause is 
left with less content than the other two, the answer is that its 
eschatological outlook is reiterated in the third clause, and that 
by itself its brevity has a telling force. Besides, exorres KT ^- 
( 19_21 ) introduce KaTexwjAee as well as -n-poo-epxwp.eda. 

The third appeal ( 24 - 25 ) turns on love (cp. 6 10 ), as the first on 
faith, and the second on hope. The members of the circle or 
community are to stir up one another to the practice of Chris- 
tian love. Since this is only possible when common worship 
and fellowship are maintained, the writer warns them against 
following the bad example of abandoning such gatherings ; kcu 
Ka.Tarowp.ei' dXXrjXous, for, if we are to Karavodv Christ (3 1 ), we 
are also bound to keep an eye on one another els iTapo£ 
dya-ir^s Kal icaXwi' epywe (i.e. an active, attractive moral life, 
inspired by Christian love). This good sense of irapos'uo-p.ds as 
stimulus seems to be an original touch ; in Greek elsewhere it 
bears the bad sense of provocation or exasperation (cp. Ac 15 39 ), 
although the verb Trapofjvveiv had already acquired a good sense 
(e.g. in Josephus, Ant. xvi. 125, 7rapo^wat rrjv evvoiav : in Pr 6 3 
10-81 iLT) eKXi)d/x€i/os, irap6^vv€ Se Kai tov (f>t\ov crov ov iveyvr]o~u> : and 
in Xen. Cyrop. vi. 2. 5, koX tovtous eVaii/wv tc -rrapw^vve). Pliny's 
words at the close of his letter to Caninius Rufus (iii. 7) illus- 
trate what is meant by irapoi;vo-p.6<; in this sense : " Scio te 
stimulis non egere ; me tamen tui caritas evocat ut currentem 
1 An instance of this is quoted in ll u . 


quoque instigem, sicut tu soles me. 'Aya#r/ 8' epis, cum invicem 
se mutuis exhortationibus amici ad amorem immortalitatis 
exacuunt." How the irapo^varfx.6% is to be carried out, the writer 
does not say. By setting a good example ? By definite exhorta- 
tions (irapciKaXourrcs, v. 25 , like 13 1 )? Mtj eYKaTaXeurocTes — do not 
do to one another what God never does to you (13 5 ), do not 
leave your fellow-members in the lurch (the force of iyKaraXuireiv, 
especially in the kolvtj) — Tr\v einau yaywyV eauTwi' (reflexive pro- 
noun in the genitive = r)fjiwv). 'Etncruvaycoyr] in the kolvtj (cp. Deiss- 
mann's Light from the East, 102 f.) means a collection (of money), 
but had already in Jewish Greek (e.g. 2 Mac 2 7 «fws av awayrj 6 
0£os iTrtavvaywyrjv rov Xaov) begun to acquire the present sense 
of a popular " gathering." KaOws e0os (sc. Zo-tiv) tio-ik. But who 
are these? What does this abandonment of common fellowship 
mean? (a) Perhaps that some were growing ashamed of their 
faith ; it was so insignificant and unpopular, even dangerous to 
anyone who identified himself with it openly. They may have 
begun to grow tired of the sacrifices and hardships involved in 
membership of the local church. This is certainly the thought 
of io s2f -,and it is better than to suppose (b) the leaders were a small 
group of teachers or more intelligent Christians, who felt able, in 
a false superiority, to do without common worship ; they did not 
require to mix with the ordinary members ! The author in any 
case is warning people against the dangers of individualism, a 
warning on the lines of the best Greek and Jewish ethics, e.g. 
Isokrates, ad Demon. 13, ti/jlo. to Scu/aoviov dei [xkv, fj.dXio-Ta 8k /xera 
Trj<s 7toA.€oj9, and the rabbinic counsel in Taanith, n. 1 (" whenever 
the Israelites suffer distress, and one of them withdraws from the 
rest, two angels come to him and, laying their hands upon his 
head, say, this man who separates himself from the assembly 
shall not see the consolation which is to visit the congregation "), 
or in Hillel's saying (Pirke Aboth 2 5 ) : " Separate not thyself 
from the congregation, and trust not in thyself until the day of 
thy death." The loyal Jews are described in Ps.-Sol 17 18 as 
01 dya7rtovT£s cruvaywyas 60-1W, and a similar thought occurs also 
(if " his " and not " my " is the correct reading) in Od. Sol 3 2 : 
" His members are with Him, and on them do I hang." Any 
early Christian who attempted to live like a pious particle without 
the support of the community ran serious risks in an age when 
there was no public opinion to support him. His isolation, what- 
ever its motive — fear, fastidiousness, self-conceit, or anything else 
— exposed him to the danger of losing his faith altogether. These 
are possible explanations of the writer's grave tone in the pas- 
sage before us. Some critics, like Zahn (§ 46), even think that 
(c) such unsatisfactory Christians left their own little congrega- 
tion for another, in a spirit of lawless pique, or to gratify their 


own tastes selfishly ; but eauiw is not emphatic, and in any 
congregation of Christians the duties of love would be pressed. 
Separatist tendencies were not absent from the early church ; 
thus some members considered themselves too good to require 
common worship, as several warnings prove, e.g. in Barn 4 10 
fir) k<x#' iavrovs cySvVovTe? fiovd^ere ws r)Srj SeSiKaiw/AeVoi, dAA* iirl 

TO aVTO 0~UV€p)(Ofl€VOL (TVvtflTilTe 7T€/3l TOW KOLVrj <TVfJ.(^ipOVTO<i) and 

Ign. Eph. 5 3 (o ovv fir) ipxofxevos iirl to olvto ovtos r)$r] VTreprjcpavel 

xal iavrov SuKpivev). But in our epistle (d) the warning is directed 
specially against people who combined Christianity with a 
number of mystery-cults, patronizing them in turn, or who with- 
drew from Christian fellowship, feeling that they had exhausted 
the Christian faith and that it required to be supplemented by 
some other cult. " At first and indeed always there were 
naturally some people who imagined that one could secure the 
sacred contents and blessings of Christianity as one did those of 
Isis or the Magna Mater, and then withdraw " (Harnack, 
Expansion of Christianity, bk. iii. c. 4 ; cp. Reitzenstein's Hellen. 
Mysterienreligionen, 94). This was serious, for, as the writer 
realized, it implied that they did not regard Christianity as the 
final and full revelation ; their action proved that the Christian 
faith ranked no higher with them than one of the numerous 
Oriental cults which one by one might interest the mind, but 
which were not necessarily in any case the last word on life. 
The argument of the epistle has been directed against this mis- 
conception of Christianity, and the writer here notes a practical 
illustration of it in the conduct of adherents who were hold- 
ing aloof, or who were in danger of holding aloof, from the 
common worship. Hence the austere warning which follows. 
Such a practice, or indeed any failure to " draw near " by 
the way of Jesus, is an insult to God, which spells hopeless 
ruin for the offender. And evidently this retribution is near. 
Christians are to be specially on their guard against conduct 
that means apostasy, for pXe'-n-eTe (how, he does not say) 
i-yyitpvcrav (as in Ro 13 12 ) ir\v T\\iipav (here, as in 1 Co 3 13 , 
without iK€Lvrj or tov Kvpiov). This eschatological setting 
distinguishes the next warning (vv. 26 ' 31 ) from the earlier 
in 6 4 " 6 . 

28 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the Truth, 
there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, 27 nothing but an awful outlook of 
doom, that " burning Wrath" which will " consume the foes" (see v. 13 ) of 
God. 28 Anyone who has rejected the law of Moses "dies" without mercy, 
" on the evidence of two or of three witnesses." 2a How much heavier, do you 
suppose, will be the punishment assigned {i.e. by God) to him who has spurned 
the Son of God, who has profaned "the covenant-blood" (9 20 ) with which he 
was sanctified (io 10 ), who has insulted the Spirit of grace? ^ We know who 
said, " Vengeance is mine, I will exact a requital" : and again (7rd\tc, as in 

X. 26.] APOSTASY 1 49 

2 13 ), " The Lord will pass sentence on his people." 31 It is an awful thing to 
fall into the hands of the living God. 

Apostasy like withdrawal from the church on the ground 
already mentioned, is treated as one of the deliberate (ckouctius) 
sins which (cp. on 5 2 ), under the OT order of religion, were 
beyond any atonement. Wilful offences, like rebellion and 
blasphemy against God, were reckoned unpardonable. " In the 
case of one who, by his sin, intentionally disowns the covenant 
itself, there can be no question of sacrifice. He has himself cut 
away the ground on which it would have been possible for him 
to obtain reconciliation" (Schultz, OT Theology, ii. 88). There 
is an equivalent to this, under the new &ia0TJK*), our author 
declares. To abandon Christianity is to avow that it is in- 
adequate, and this denial of God's perfect revelation in Jesus 
Christ is fatal to the apostate. In eKoucnws apapTorrwv Tjp.we ( 26 ), 
€kou0-«us is put first for the sake of emphasis, and ap.apr6vTwv 
means the sin of a7rocrn}vai airo 6eov £oivTos (3 12 ) or of Trapa- 
warreiv (6 6 ), the present tense implying that such people persist 
in this attitude. 'Ekouctlws is the keynote to the warning. Its 
force may be felt in a passage like Thuc. iv. 98, where the 
Athenians remind the Boeotians that God pardons what is done 
under the stress of war and peril, /cat yap twv aKovcrimv ap,apr-q- 
p.d.Twv Ka.Ta<j>vyr]v ctvat tovs /Jw/aovs, and that it is wanton and 
presumptuous crimes alone which are heinous. Philo (vif. Mos. 
i. 49) describes Balaam praying for forgiveness from God on 
the ground that he had sinned vir dyvota? a\\' ov /ca#' ckovo-iov 
yvwp.r)v. The adverb occurs in 2 Mac 14 3 CAA./«p.os . . . e/cotio-uos 
8e p-e/jLoXvo-fxevos). The general idea of the entire warning is that 
the moral order punishes all who wantonly and wilfully flout it ; 
as Menander once put it (Kock's Com. Attic. Fragm. 700) : 

vo/Aos < ovSev icrriv rj vo/x.os' 
6 p.1] <pv\ax8el<; kcu yop.o<; ko.1 S7J/XIOS. 

Our author expresses this law of retribution in personal terms 
drawn from the OT, which prove how deeply moral and reverent 
his religious faith was, and how he dreaded anything like pre- 
suming upon God's kindness and mercy. The easy-going man 
thinks God easy going ; he is not very serious about his religious 
duties, and he cannot imagine howGodcan take them very seriously 
either. " We know " better, says the author of IIpos 'Efipaiovs ! 

Christianity is described (in v. 26 ) as to A.a/3eiv rrjv iiriyvaiutv 
t^s a\r)deia<s, a semi-technical phrase of the day, which recurs in 
the Pastoral Epistles (though with i\$etv cts instead of Aa/Setv). It 
is not one of our author's favourite expressions, 1 but the phrase 

1 Here it is an equivalent for the phrases used in 6 4, 5 ; there is no dis- 
tinction between eirlyvueis and yvutrts (deov) any more than in the LXX, and 


is partly used by Epictetus in its most general sense (Xafiwv tis 
7rapa rrjs </>vcr£a)s p.erpa /ecu Kavovas ets €7riyva)c r ii' rf/s aX-qQeias ktA.., 
ii. 20. 21), when upbraiding the wretched academic philosophers 
(ot a.Ta\.aiirwpot. 'AKaSrj/xatKOL) for discrediting the senses as organs 
of knowledge, instead of using and improving them. All that 
renegades can expect (v. 27 ) is <j>op€pdt tis ( = quidam, deepening 
the idea with its touch of vagueness) ckSoxt) (a sense coined by 
the writer for this term, after his use of i^e^eo-daL in io 13 ) Kpurews, 
for they have thrown over the only sacrifice that saves men from 
KptVis (9 27 )- This is expanded in a loose 1 reminiscence of Is 
26 11 (£,fj\os X-qjx\p€Tai Xabv aTra&evTov, koX vvv irvp tous virevavTiovs 
eSeTcu), though the phrase irupos £rj\os recalls Zeph i 19 (3 s ) iv 
irvpl i^rjXov avrov KaravaXoiOiqcTeTaL Tracra rj yi). The contemporary 
Jewish Apocalypse of Baruch (48 s9 - 40 ) contains a similar threat 
to wilful sinners : 

"Therefore shall a fire consume their thoughts, 
and in flame shall the meditations of their reins be tried ; 
for the Judge shall come and will not tarry — 
because each of earth's inhabitant knew when he was trans- 

The penalty for the wilful rejection (aGe-n^aas) of the Mosaic 
law 2 was severe (Dt 17 2 " 17 ), but not more severe than the penalty 
to be inflicted on renegades from Christianity (vv. 28 " 31 ). The 
former penalty was merciless, x w P l s oiKTipjxwi> (to which, at an 
early period, /ecu SaKpvuv was added by D, most old Latin texts, 
and syr hkl ). It is described in a reminiscence of Dt 17 6 «rt Svalv 
fMapTvcriv rj iirl rpicrlv p-dprvaiv airoOaveiTCLL 6 airodvifjaKOiv (i.e. the 
apostate who has yielded to idolatry). The witnesses executed 
the punishment for the sin of which they had given evidence 
(Dt 17 7 , Ac 7 57f -, Jn 8 7 , Sanhedrim 6 4 ), but this is not before the 
writer's mind ; lirL with the dative simply means " on the ground 
of (the evidence given by)." In ttoo-w SokcItc ktX. (v. 29 ), So/mre 
is intercalated as in Aristoph. Acharn. 1 2 (7rws tovt la-ticri p.ov 
Sokci? ttjv Kap&iav ;), and Herm. Sim. ix. 28. 8 (et to. Wv-q tovs 
8ouA.ous avTwv KoXd£ov(TLV, idv Tts apvrj<Tr]Ta.i tov Kvptov iavrov, Tt 
SoKeire Troirjo-ei 6 Kvpios vplv ;). Hoaw (cp. 9 14 ) introduces an 

a\r)8eia had been already stamped by Philo (e.g. de Justitia, 6, where the 
proselyte is said /ieracao-rds els aX-rjdeiav) as a term for the true religion, 
which moulds the life of those who become members of the People. Compare 
the study of the phrase by M. Dibelius in NT Studienfiir G. Jjfeinrici (igiq.), 
pp. 176-189. 

1 Probably it was the awkwardness of f^Xos, coming after irvp6s, which led 
to its omission in W. Sah reads simply " the flame of the fire." 

2 According to the later rabbinic theory of inspiration, even to assert that 
Moses uttered one word of the Torah on his own authority was to despise the 
Torah (Sifre 112, on Nu 15 31 ). 

X. 29, 30.] RENEGADES 15 1 

argument from the less to the greater, which was the first of 
Hillel's seven rules for exegesis, and which is similarly used by 
Philo in de Fuga, 16, where, after quoting Ex 21 15 , he adds that 
Moses here practically denies that there is any pardon for those 
who blaspheme God (ci yap 61 tovs 6vr)Tov<i KaK-qyoprjcravTes yovcis 
airayovTai 7-77V €7ri Oavdrw, tivos a$iov<s xpr) vop.i£eiv Tip.a)pias tovs 
Ttuv oAwv iraripa koX TronqTYjv /3\a(T(pr]p.eiv virop.ivovra'i ;). There 
is also a passage in de Spec. Legibus (ii. 254, 255) where Philo 
asks, " If a man p.77 7rpoo->;/<ovTcjs o/xrvs is guilty, 71-00-775 d£ios 
Ti/xcopias 6 t6v ovtcos ovra 6ebv apvovp,evo<; ; " 

Tifiupia originally meant vengeance. Aituptpei. 5e ri/xcopia Kal K6Xa<m" rj 
fj.kv yap K(5\a<rts rod irdcrxovros e>e/ca iariv, i] 5k ri/xupla tou ttoiovvtos, Xva 
diroirXripudrj (Arist. Rhetoric, i. 10. 11 ; see Cope's Introduction, p. 232). 
But it became broadened into the general sense of punishment, and this 
obtained in Hellenistic Greek. 

The threefold description of what is involved in the sin of 
apostasy begins : 6 rbv 6\hv too 0eou KaTaTraTrjo-as, another ex- 
pression for the thought of 6 6 , which recalls Zee 12 3 (A.i'0ov 
KarairaTovfiivov 77-acav tois eBveaiv' Tras 6 KaTa7ra7w avrrjv £p.7rai£a)v 
c/ATraifcT-ai). KaTaTraTciv op/aa was the phrase for breaking oaths 
{Iliad, 4 157 ); with a personal object, the verb denotes con- 
tempt of the most flagrant kind. Another aspect of the sin is 
that a man has thereby Koikoe x vjyr|<rafA6i'os the sacrifice of Jesus ; 
his action means that it is no more to him than an ordinary death 
("communem," d), instead of a divine sacrifice which makes him 
a partaker of the divine fellowship (see p. 145). Where Christ is 
rejected, he is first despised ; outward abandonment of him 
springs from some inward depreciation or disparagement. The 
third aspect, Kal to weCpa rfjs x^P lT °5 ( n °t T0V vofxov Muucrcws) 
eku|3puras, suggests that the writer had in mind the language of 
Zee 12 10 (iK\€u) . . . Trvevpia ^aptTos Kal oiKTip/xoC), but 7Ti>euu.a 
xdpiTos (contrasted here, as in Jn i 17 , with the vo/aos Moruo-ews) 
is a periphrasis for Trvevp-a dyiov(6 4 )j xdpts being chosen (4 16 12 15 ) 
to bring out the personal, gracious nature of the power so wan- 
tonly insulted. 2 'Eeuf3pi£eii' is not a LXX term, and it generally 
takes the dative. ('E^ u Yiyido-GYj after Tjyirio-du.ei'os is omitted by 
A and some MSS of Chrysostom.) 

The sombre close (vv. 30 - 31 ) of the warning is a reminder 
that the living God punishes renegades. *o|3epoV (v. 31 ) re-echoes 
the (pofiepd of v. 27 , and the awful nature of the doom is brought 
out by two quotations adapted from the OT. 'Ep.ol Ik&iktio-is, 

1 Once in the LXX (Pr 15 23 ) in this sense. 

2 In Test. Jud. 18 2 the wvevp-a xap'T-os poured out upon men is the Spirit 
as a gracious gift of God. But in He io 29 , as in Eph 4 3u , it is the divine Spirit 
wounded or outraged, the active retribution, however, being ascribed not to 
the Spirit itself but to God. 


eyw avTcuroScoCTw, is the same form of Dt 32 s5 as is quoted in Ro 
12 19 ; it reproduces the Hebrew original more closely than the 
LXX {ev ^jp-epa 6k8ik^<t«<bs avrcnroSwcra)), perhaps from some 
current Greek version, unless the author of Hebrews borrowed 
it from Paul. 1 Some of the same authorities as in 8 12 indeed 
add, from Ro 12 19 , Xe'yei Ku'pios (K c A D c K L arm Theodoret, 
Damasus, etc.). Kpiyel Kupios toc \abv auTou is from Dt 32 s6 . The 
thought of the original, in both passages, is God avenging his 
people on their foes and championing them, not punishing them ; 
but here this fate is assigned to all who put themselves outside 
the range of God's mercy in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ ; they fall 
under God's retribution. To i^ireaelv els x e ^P a ? ^eoG * s a phrase 
used in a very different sense in 2 S 24 14 , Sir 2 18 ; here it means, 
to fall into the grasp of the God who punishes the disloyal 2 
or rebels against his authority. Thus the tyrant Antiochus is 
threatened, in 2 Mac 7 31 , ov jxtj Siacpvyrjs i-as x"/ 301 ? T0 ^ Oeov. As 
in 3 12 , £&rros is added to 6eoG to suggest that he is quick and 
alive to inflict retribution. The writer is impressively reticent 
on the nature of God's Tifiwpia, even more reticent than Plato, in 
one of the gravest warnings in Greek literature, the famous 
passage in the Leges (904, 905) about the divine 81*77 : TavV^s 
tt}s 8ik7)<; ovre o~v fx-q 7TOT6 ovt€ el aAAos aTUY^s yevo/xevos eirev^-qTai 
■Keptyeveo-Qai Oewv' rjv Traow SikCjv SiaepepovTw? era^dv re 61 Ta^avrcv 
vpewv tc eijevXafieio-daL to irafidirav. ov yap afxeX^drjarrj ttot\ vtt 
avTrj<;' o&x ovtw o"/xi»cpos 2>v 8vo~r] Kara to tt)s yi}? /3d0o<;, orS' v{j/r]X6<; 
yevofxevos els rbv ovpavov avaTTTrjo~r), Tetcrets ok avTu>v rrpr Trpoo-r)Kovo~av 
Tt/itDpiav eir iv6a.Se fxevtuv elre koX ev AtSov oiairopevOeis. Plato 
altered the Homeric term 6Y/07 Oeuv to suit his purpose; what 
meant "way" or "habit," he turned into a weighty word for 
"justice." The alteration is justified from his "preaching" 
point of view, and the solemn note of the Greek sage's warning 
is that of He io 26f - ; you cannot play fast and loose with God. 

Yet, as at 6 9 , so here, the writer swiftly turns from warning to 
encouragement, appealing to his readers to do better than he 
feared, and appealing to all that was best in them. " Why 
throw away the gains of your fine record in the past? You have 
not long to wait for your reward. Hold on for a little longer." 
This is the theme of vv. 32 " 39 : 

1 Paul cites the saying to prove that private Christians need not and must 
not take revenge into their own hands, since God is sure to avenge his people 
on their adversaries. Which is close to the idea of the original. Our author 
uses the text to clinch a warning that God will punish (Kpivei = " punibit," not 
"judicabit") his people for defying and deserting him. 

2 So the martyr Eleazar protests in 2 Mac 6 28 , as he refuses to save his 
life by unworthy compromise : el yap Kal tirl tov irapbvros i^eXovfxai r\\v i£ 
avOpdiiruiv ri/xupiav, dXXd ras rod iravTOKparopos x e 'P ay °^ Te ffi v °^ Te o-^odavwv 

X. 32, 33.] A FINE RECORD 1 53 

82 Recall the for)ner days when, after you were enlightened {<f><i)Ti<jdivTes 
as 6 4 ), you endured a hard struggle of suffering, M partly by being held up 
yourselves to obloquy and anguish, partly by making common cause with those 
who fared in this way ; 84 for you did sympathize with the prisoners, and you 
took the confiscation of your own belongings cheerfully, conscious that elsewhere 
you had higher, you had lasting possessions. ^ Now do not drop that con- 
fidence of yours ; it (rjm, as in 2 s ) carries with it a rich hope of reward. 
86 Steady patience is what you need, so that after doing the will of God you 
may (like Abraham, 6 15 ) get what you have been promised. & For "in a 
little, a vety little" now, 

" The Coming One (o, 29 ) will arrive without delay. 

88 Meantime my just man shall live on by his faith ; 
if he shrinks back, my soul takes no delight in him." 
39 We are not the men to shrink back and be lost, but to have faith and so to 
win our souls. 

The excellent record of these Christians in the past consisted 
in their common brotherliness (6 10 ), which is now viewed in the 
light of the hardships they had had to endure, soon after they 
became Christians. The storm burst on them early; they 
weathered it nobly ; why give up the voyage, when it is nearly 
done ? It is implied that any trouble at present is nothing to 
what they once passed through. 'Ayajjuiivrjo-Keo-Qe 8e -ros irpoTepoi' 
Tjfie'pas (v. 32 ) : memory plays a large part in the religious experi- 
ence, and is often as here a stimulus. In these earlier days they 
had (vv. 32 - 33 ) two equally creditable experiences (tooto \ii\> . . . 
touto 8e, a good classical idiom) ; they bore obloquy and hard- 
ship manfully themselves, and they also made common cause 
with their fellow-sufferers. By saying aOXtjan' TraGrip.dTwt', the 
writer means, that the ira6-qp.aTa made the aOVno-is which tested 
their powers (2 10 ). *A6\r)<ri<; — the metaphor is athletic, as in 12 1 
— came to denote a martyr's death in the early church ; but no 
such red significance attaches to it here. Apparently the per- 
secution was not pushed to the last extreme (12 4 ); all survived 
it. Hence there can be no allusion to the " ludibria " of Nero's 
outburst against the Roman Christians, in (v. 33 ) 0eaTpi£6p.eeoi, 
which is used in a purely figurative sense (so dearpov in 1 Co 4 9 ), 
like eK#£a.Tpi£eiv in Polybius (e.g. iii. 91. 10, SioVep Zp.e\\ov . . . 
eKOeoiTpieiv 8k tov<; 7roA.€yuioi>s <pvyop.a)(ovvTa.<;). The meaning is 
that they had been held up to public derision, scoffed and 
sneered at, accused of crime and vice, unjustly suspected and 
denounced. All this had been, the writer knew, a real ordeal, 
particularly because the stinging contempt and insults had had 
to be borne in the open. "Otciv yap tis 6vei8i£r]Tcu /ca0' iavrov, 
XvTrrjpbv p.h', 7roAA.w o€ 7rAeov, oTav eVi 7ravTwv (Chrysostom). They 
had been exposed to 6k€i8io-p.oIs tc kcu 0\i«|/E<rt, taunts and scorn 
that tempted one to feel shame (an experience which our author 
evidently felt keenly), as well as to wider hardships, both insults 
and injuries. All this they had stood manfully. Better still, 


their personal troubles had not rendered them indisposed to 
care for their fellow-sufferers, tw outws {i.e. in the Tradrj/xaTa) 
dcacrTpe4)0(xeVcji' (13 18 ). They exhibited the virtue of practical 
sympathy, urged in 13 3 , at any risk or cost to themselves (koi^gWi 
. . . yevt]QivTe<s with the genitive, as in LXX of Pr 28 14 , Is i 23 ). 

The ideas of v. 33 are now (v. 34 ) taken up in the reverse order 
(as in 5 1 " 7 ). Kal yap tols Seapviois aweTra0r)<Ta,Te, imprisonment 
being for some a form of their TraOrjjxaTa. Christians in prison 
had to be visited and fed by their fellow-members. For o-ujx-n-aGeic 
(cp. 4 15 ) as between man and man, see Test. Sym. 3 6 koI \olttov 
crvfJLTraOel tw <p6ovovp.£v(i> : Test. Benj. 4 4 tu acrOevovvTi o-vp.Trdo-\€i : 
Ign. Rom. 6 4 avfj.Tra6eiT0i (xol : and the saying which is quoted 
in Meineke's Frag. Comic. Graec. iv. 52, Ik tov -rraOzZv yiyvwo-Ke 

Kal to avfXTradelv' Kal arol yap dAAos o-Vfnra8rjo-£Tai irada>v. They 

had also borne their own losses with more than equanimity, 1 
with actual gladness (p.e-rd x a P<*s, the same thought as in Ro 5 s , 
though differently worked out), y^uxTKovres (with accus. and 
infinitive) e'x ei1 ' eau-rou's ( = vfxa<s, which is actually read here by 
Cosmas Indicopleustes, 348a ; eau-rWs is not emphatic any more 
than kavTwv in v. 25 ) Kpeioxrofa (a favourite term of the author) 
uTmp£ii> (Ac 2 35 ) Kal p.eVoucrai' (13 14 , the thought of Mt 6 20 ). TV 
dpTrayV twi' uizapypvruiv upvcoy (cp. Polybius, iv. 17. 4, d/)7rayas 
v-rrapxpvToiv) implies that their own property had been either 
confiscated by the authorities or plundered in some mob-riot. 
Note the paronomasia of vTrapypvrtav and v-n-ap^iv, and the place 
of this loss in the list of human evils as described in the Laches, 
195 E (ctre tw Qavaros €tT€ vocros etre a.Troj3o\r} xpr)p.aT(i>v l<rrai). 

There is no question of retaliation ; the primitive Christians whom the 
author has in view had no means of returning injuries for injuries, or even 
of claiming redress. Thus the problem raised and solved by contemporary 
moralists does not present itself to the writer; he does not argue, as, e.g., 
Maximus of Tyre did in the next century (Dissert ii.), that the good man 
should treat the loss of property as a trifle, and despise the futile attempts of 
his enemies to injure him thus, the soul or real self being beyond the reach 
of such evil-doers. The tone is rather that of Tob 4 21 [/xr] <poJ3ov, ircuftlov, 6ti 
iTTTUxevcraixei'' inrdpxet. vol iroWa, e&v (f>o(3r]6ris rbv diov ktX. ), except that 
our author notes the glow (fMera. x^pas) of an enthusiastic unworldliness, 
which was more than any Stoic resignation or even any quiet acquiescence 
in providence; he suggests in eavrovs that, while others might seize and hold 
their property, they themselves had a possession of which no one could rob 
them. Seneca (Ep. ix. 18-19) quotes the famous reply of the philosophic 
Stilpo to Demetrius Poliorketes, who asked him, after the siege and sack of 
Megara, if he had lost anythiog in the widespread ruin, Stilpo answered 
that he had suffered no loss ; " omnia bona mecum sunt." That is, Seneca 
explains, he did not consider anything as " good " which could be taken from 
him. This helps to illustrate what the author of Upbs 'Efipalovs means. As 
Epictetus put it, there are more losses than the loss of property (ii. 10. 14, 

1 This is not conveyed in irpocredi^aade, which here, as in II 35 , simply 
means "accepted," not "welcomed." 

X. 34, 35.] PERSECUTION 155 

<kX\a Set ce Kipfia airoKiaai, Xva faniuidfis, AXkov < 5' > oiidevbs dirdiXeta fij/uot 
rbv dvdpwirop ;). A similar view pervades the fine homiletic misinterpretation 
of Dt 6 B in Berachoth g 5 "Man is bound to bless [God] for evil as for 
good, for it is said, Thou shall love Jakweh thy God -with all thy heart and 
with all thy soul and with all thy strength. With all thy heart means, with 
both yetzers, the good and the bad alike : with all thy soul means, even if he 
deprive thee of thy soul : with all thy strength means, with all thy posses- 
sions." A similar view is cited in Sifre 32. Apollonius, in the last quarter 
of the second century, declares : " We do not resent having our goods taken 
from us, because we know that, whether wc live or die, we are the Lord's " 
(Conybeare, Monuments of Early Christianity, p. 44). 

No persecution known to us in the primitive church answers 
to the data of this passage. But some sidelights are thrown upon 
it by Philo's vivid account of the earlier anti-Semite riots in 
Alexandria. He notes that even those who sympathized with 
the persecuted were punished : w 8' ws a\6u)<s TreirovOoTwv </u'A.oi 
Kal o-vyyevets, on p.6vov Tat? w irpoo-qKOVTOiv crvLLcpopais o~vvqK- 
yrjo-av, air-qyovro, efxacrriyovvTO, irpo^t^ovTO, kou yntTa 7rao-as ras 
at/ctas, oo~as iBvvaro xioprjo-at. to. o-w/xara avrols, f} TcAevTaia /ecu 
ecbeSpos Ttfjunpia crravpos rjv {in Flaccum, 7 : n. b. neither here 
nor in n 35f - does the author of ILoos 'EfipaLovs mention the cross 
as a punishment for sufferers). Philo {ibid. 9) continues : 7revia 
yakzirhv p.ev, /cal fidXiad' orav /caTao-Keva^TjTai 7rpos i\6pwv, eXarrov 
Se rrjs ets to. aoifxara v/Jpecos, kolv rj Ppa^vraTy]. He repeats this 
(10), telling how Flaccus maltreated Jews who had been already 
Stripped of their property, iva ol fiev v-irop.tvuo-1 Sir-ras o-iyxcbopas, 
■jreviav bfxov Kal tt]v ev tol<s vj3piv, Kal ol Likv SpoJVTCS, 
&o"jrep ev Tots dearpLKOi'i iu't<.ois KadvirepKpivovTO tov<s Tracr^ovTas. 

Three items of textual corruption occur in v. 84 . (a) Seo-jxiois (p 13 A D* H 
33. 104. 241. 424**. 635. 1245. 1288. 1739. 1908. 1912. 2005 r vg syr hkI 
boh arm Chrys. ) was eventually corrupted into dea/xois {fJ-ov) in N D° ^ 256. 
1288* etc. vt eth Clem. Orig.), a misspelling (i.e. 5ecr/xo?s) which, with fxov 
added to make sense, contributed to the impression that Paul had written 
the epistle (Ph I 7, 15f< , Col 4 18 ). Compare the text implied in the (Pelagian ?) 
prologue to Paul's epp. in vg : "nam et vinctis compassi estis, et rapinam 
bonorum vestrorum cum gaudio suscepistis." 

(d) lavToiJS (p 13 n A H lat boh Clem. Orig. etc.) suffered in the course of 
transmission ; it was either omitted (by C) or altered into eavrols (D K L 4', 
etc., Chrys.) or iv eavroh (i. 467. 489. 642. 920. 937. 1867. 1873), the dative 
being an attempt to bring out the idea that they had in their own religious 
personalities a possession beyond the reach of harm and loss, an idea pushed 
by some editors even into eavrom, but too subtle for the context. 

(c) a>irap|iv was eventually defined by the addition of Iv (tois) ovpavois 
(from Ph 3 20 ?) in x° D° H** * 6. 203. 326. 506. 1288. 1739 syr arm Chrys. 

The reminder of vv. 32-34 is now ( 35 - 39 ) pressed home. Mr) 
d.Tro|3d\r|Te ouv ttjv irapprjaiav up.wv, as evinced in p.eT& x a pSs • • • 
yivwo-Korres ktX. The phrase occurs in Dio Chrys. Oral. 34 s9 
(SeSoiKa p.i] TtAeojs a.Troj3d\r)Te rrjv Trapprjariuv) and elsewhere in the 


sense of losing courage, but irapp-qo-La. retains its special force 
C3 6 ) here, and ebro/SaAAciv is the opposite of Karex £iv (" nolite 
itaque amittere," vg). The Trapprja-Ca is to be maintained, ^ns 
Ixei jieyciXT)!' fno-OcnroSoo-icH' (as 11 26 ), it is so sure of bringing 
its reward in the bliss promised by God to cheerful loyalty. 
Compare the saying of the contemporary rabbi Tarphon : " faith- 
ful is the Master of thy work, who will pay thee the reward of 
thy work, and know thou that the recompense of the reward of 
the righteous is for the time to come " (Pirke Aboth 2 19 ). 

Epictetus makes a similar appeal, in iv. 3. 3 f., not to throw away all that 
one has gained in character by failing to maintain one's philosophical 
principles when one has suffered some loss of property. When you lose any 
outward possession, recollect what you gain instead of it (tL dvr airov 
irepnroi-f]) ; otherwise, you imperil the results of all your past conscientiousness 
(S<ra vvv 7rpotr^x«'S (reavraj, fitWeis 4kx^" diravra Tavra Kal dvarpiiretv). And 
it takes so little to do this ; a mere swerve from reasonable principle (/iu/cpas 
&Tro<TTpo<pT)s rod \670u), a slight drowsiness, and all is lost (dirrjXdev Trdvra to. 
fi^XP 1 p vv ffweiKeypJva). No outward possession is worth having, Epictetus 
continues, if it means that one ceases to be free, to be God's friend, to serve 
God willingly. I must not set my heart on anything else ; God does not 
allow that, for if He had chosen, He would have made such outward goods 
good for me (dyadd irewot.r)Kei avrd av i/xol). Maximus of Tyre again argued 
that while, for example, men might be willing to endure pain and discomfort 
for the sake and hope of regaining health, " if you take away the hope of good 
to come, you also take away the power of enduring present ills " (el dcpeXois 
Tiva iXirlda rwv /j.{\\ovtwi> dyaddv, d^cup^creis Kal rivd a'ipeaiv t&v irapdi/Twv 
KaKQv, Diss, xxxiii). 

To retain the Christian irappTjo-ia means still uiropiyeie, no 
longer perhaps in the earlier sense (uirepeiVaTe, v. 82 ), and yet some- 
times what has to be borne is harder, for sensitive people, than 
any actual loss. Such obedience to the will of God assumes 
many phases, from endurance of suffering to sheer waiting, and 
the latter is now urged (v. 36 ). 'Yirop.oi'fjs yap e'x eTe XP €ia|/ (5 12 ) "" (i 
to GArjpa tou 0eou Troi^o-arTes (suggested by io 7 " 9 ) Kop.urncr0€ rr)v 
tTra.YY^a*' (6 12 io 23 ). "Though the purpose of v7ro(iovrj is 
contained in the clause Iva . . . eVayyeXiav, yet the function of 
this clause in the sentence is not telic. Its office is not to 
express the purpose of the principal clause, but to set forth a 
result (conceived, not actual) of which the possesion of vttojxovti 
is the necessary condition " (Burton, NT Moods and Tenses, 
p. 93). ^ivofxovri and v-rrofxivetv echo through this passage and 
12 1 - 7 , the idea of tenacity being expressed in io 38 -ii 40 by ttio-tis. 
'Yiro/xovrj here as in the LXX (cp. Diat. 3548a-*:) implies the 
conviction of "hope that the evil endured will be either remedied 
or proved to be no evil." KopiVnaOe does not mean to get back 
or recover, nor to gather in, but simply as in the K.oivr\ to receive, 
to get what has been promised (ttjc en-ayY"^ 1 ' "') rather than to 
get it as our due (which is the idea of ix«r6(nro?>o<riav), though 

X. 36-38.] THE PATIENCE OF HOPE 1 57 

what is promised is in one sense our due, since the promise can 
only be fulfilled for those who carry out its conditions (6 10 ). And 
it will soon be fulfilled. "Have patience; it is not long now." 
Again he clinches his appeal with an OT word, this time from the 
prophets (w. 37 - 38 ). *Eti yap (om. p 13 ) p-ucpd^ (sc. lo-riv) ocroe oaov. 
In de mutat. nomin. 44, Philo comments upon the aptness and 
significance of the word vai in the promise of Gn 17 19 (rl yap 
evTrpeirearepov rj rayaOa. €7riveu€iv fow kcll Ta^e'ws 6yu.oA.oyeiv ;). Our 
author has a similar idea in mind, though he is eschatological, as 
Philo is not. "OtToy 00-ov is a variant in D (on Lk 5 3 ) for oAiyov. 
The phrase occurs in Aristoph. Wasps, 213 (tl ovk a7r€Koip.rj6rjo-av 
oaov 00-ov o-tlXtjv), and elsewhere, but here it is a reminiscence of 
the LXX of Is 26 20 (p.LKp6v 00-ov 00-ov). Hence, although paicpdv 
00-oe is also used, as by Philo, the omission of the second 00-ov in 
the text of Hebrews by some cursives (e.g. 6. 181. 326. 1836) 
and Eusebius is unjustified. The words serve to introduce the 
real citation, apparently suggested by the term u-n-opovTjs (v. 36 ), 
from Hab 2 3 - 4 £<xv vo-Tfprjo-r], vTr6p,ewov avro'v, on cp^d/xevos fj£ei 
/cat ov fxi] ^povio-Tj' iav VTroo-T€i\rjTai, ovk evSoKtl rj ^v\rj p.ov iv avrtL' 
6 Se 8ucaios i< 7rto-T€ws /xov £r)creTai, especially as the LXX makes 
the object of patient hope not the fulfilment of the vision, i.e. 
the speedy downfall of the foreign power, but either messiah 
or God. (a) The author of Hebrews further adds 6 to ipxofievos, 
applying the words to Christ ; (b) changes ov jitj xpoiacT] into 00 
xpoyet : 1 (c) reverses the order of the last two clauses, and (d) 
shifts p.ou in front of Ik mo-Tews, as in the A text of the LXX. 
In the MSS of Hebrews, p.ov is entirely omitted by p 13 D H K 
LPW cop eth Chrys. etc., to conform the text to the Pauline 
quotation (Ro i 17 , Gal 3 11 ), while the original LXX text, with 
p-ov after 7ricrreci)?, is preserved in D* d syr pesh hkl etc. This text, 
or at any rate its Hebrew original, meant that the just man (i.e. 
the Israelite) lived by God being faithful to his covenant with 
the nation. In ripos 'Eppatous the idea is that the just man of 
God is to live by his own mcms or loyalty, as he holds on and 
holds out till the end, timidity meaning dirwXeia (v. 39 ), while the 
far) promised by God as the reward of human loyalty is the 
outcome of ttlo-tU (Ik moreus). But our author is interested in 
Trio-Td rather than in far). The latter is not one of his categories, 
in the sense of eternal life ; this idea he prefers to express 
otherwise. What he quotes the verse for is its combination of 
God's speedy recompense and of the stress on human Trams, 
which he proceeds to develop at length. The note struck in 6 
8e Sikcuos p.ou also echoes on and on through the following 
passage (n 4 "AfteX . . . ep.apTup^0T] cti/ai Sikcuos, ii 7 Nwe . . . 

1 This second future, or xp° v ^ ce h P 13 ** D*, is read by some editors {e.g. 
Tregelles, W-H, B. Weiss). 


tt}s kcito. morii' 8ikcuoowt]S, 1 1 33 r)pydoracTO Sikcuoo-uVtji', 12 11 icap-Troy 
diroSiSuxrii' Sikcuoo-uVyjs, 1 2 23 weufAao-i SiKOuwi' T€Te\ei<i)juieV(i)i'). The 
aim of (c) was to make it clear, as it is not clear in the LXX, 
that the subject of u"n-ooT€iXT]Tai was 6 Sikcuos, and also to make 
the warning against apostasy the climax. Kal eav u-n-oo-TeiXTjTcu — 
not simply in fear (as, e.g., Dem. adv. Pant. 630, fxrjSev viroa-TtX- 
Xo/xevov ixrjS 1 alaxyvofxevov), but in the fear which makes men (cp. 
Gal 2 12 ) withdraw from their duty or abandon their convictions — 
ouk euSoicet f\ ^ux^ (a° u *" cwtw. it is a fresh proof of the freedom 
which the writer uses, that he refers these last seven words to 
God as the speaker ; in Habakkuk the words are uttered by the 
prophet himself. Then, with a ringing, rallying note, he expresses 
himself confident about the issue. c Hp.eIs 8e ouk iafikv uTroaToXtjs 
(predicate genitive, as in 12 11 , unless dVSpe? or Ik is supplied) els 
dirwXeiai', dXXd moreus €19 irepiiroiTjaii' *J*uxf]S ( = ^creTai, V. 38 ). 
neptTToirjo-i? occurs three times in the LXX (2 Ch 14 13 , Hag 2 9 , 
Mai 3 17 ) and several times in the NT, but never with ^uxtjs, 
though the exact phrase was known to classical Greek as an 
equivalent for saving one's own life. 'YttootoAt/, its antithesis, 
which in Jos. B.J. ii. 277 means dissimulation, has this new 
sense stamped on it, after uTrooTeiXTjTai. 

The exhortation is renewed in i2 lf -, but only after a long 
paean on moris, with historical illustrations, to prove that 7rt<rns 
has always meant hope and patience for loyal members of the 
People (n 1 " 40 ). The historical r^sumd (n 3-40 ), by which the 
writer seeks to kindle the imagination and conscience of his 
readers, is prefaced by a brief introduction (ii 1-8 ) : 

1 Now faith means we are confident of what we hope for, convinced of what 
we do not see. ^ It was for this that the men of old won their record. 3 It 
is by faith we understand that the world was fashioned by the word of God, 
and thus the visible was made out of the invisible. 

Calvin rightly protested against any division here, as an in- 
terruption to the thought : " quisquis hie fecit initium capitis 
undecimi, perperam contextum abrupit." The following argu- 
ment of ii 1 " 40 flows directly out of io 35 " 39 : ifjLOfxovT] is justified 
and sustained by 7rt'o-Tis, and we have now a Aoyos\y)crtu><; 

On jxifx-qTal tu>v Sid 7ricrT€toS Kal fx.aKpoOvfxia'i KXiqpovOfjLOvvTOiv rds 

€7rayyeXtas (6 12 ). Hitherto the only historical characters who 
have been mentioned have been Abraham, Melchizedek, Moses, 
Aaron, and Joshua; and Abraham alone has been mentioned 
for his Trams ; now a long list of heroes and heroines of 7ricrrei 
is put forward, from Abel to the Maccabean martyrs. But first 
(vv. 1 " 3 ) a general word on faith. "Eoth' 8e moris ktX. (v. 1 ). It 
is needless to put a comma after 7uo-tis, i.e., " there is such a 
thing as faith, faith really exists." Ei/u at the beginning of a 


sentence does not necessarily carry this meaning ; cp. e.g. Wis 

7 1 elfii fiev Kayoy 0vt)t6<;, Lk 8 11 ecrriv 8k atrj-77 rj irapafioXrj (Jn 2 I 25 

and i Jn 5 17 etc.). "Earn/ here is simply the copula, mans being 
the subject, and eX-ju^ou-ecuf uiroaTacris the predicate. This turn 
of phrase is common in Philo, who puts Icrn first in descriptions 
or definitions (e.g. Leg. Allegor. iii. 75, !<rrt 8k arevayfi-bs a<f>o8pa 
Kal iiriTerafAevr) Xvirrj : quod deus immut. 19, eori 8k cv^r/ fj.kv 
alrrjo-is ayaOwv Trapb. dtov ktA.). Needless difficulties have been 
raised about what follows. 'Yiroaracris is to be understood in the 
sense of 3 14 " une assurance certaine " (Menegoz) ; " faith is a 
sure confidence of thynges which are hoped for, and a certaynetie 
of thynges which are not seyne" (Tyndale), the opposite of 
vTTOCTToXrj. In the parallel clause, Trpdyu.aTWi' eXeyxos ou j3Xeiro- 
pevuv (which in Attic Greek would have been £>v dv ns //.?) bpa), 
grammatically -7rpa.y1xa.Twv might go with eXTn,£ou.eVw>/ instead of 
with pXeirofxeVwi', for the sake of emphasis (so Chrysostom, 
Oecumenius, von Soden, etc.) ; the sense would be unaffected, 
but the balance of the rhythm would be upset. "EXeyxos is used 
in a fresh sense, as the subjective " conviction " (the English 
word has acquired the same double sense as the Greek); as 
Euthymius said, it is an equivalent for Trpay/xdrtov dopdrwv TrXrjpo- 
(popia. (so syr arm eth). The writer could find no Greek term 
for the idea, and therefore struck out a fresh application for 
eXeyxos. As for eXm^oneVwe . . . ou pXcirojJieVwv' (o yap /SXeVet tis, 
tL IXiri^eL ; et 8k o ov fiXtiro/xev iXTTi^ofiev 8l V7to/xovt}<; dTT€K8e^6fj.e6a, 
Ro 8 24 - 25 ), the unseen realities of which faith is confident are 
almost entirely in the future as promised by God, though, as the 
sequel shows, to. ou pXeird/jieca (e.g. vv. 3, 7 - 8 - 27 ) are not precisely 
the same as Ta iX-m(6fjt.eva. It cannot be too emphatically 
pointed out that the writer did not mean to say : (a) that faith 
gave substance or reality to unseen hopes, though this is the 
interpretation of the Greek fathers (Chrysostom, for example, 
argues : en-ciS?) ra lv eXirt'St dvv7rocrTaTa etvat 8okc7, rj 7rt'(TTts vtto- 
(TTacnv avTOis \apL^rai' p.dXXov 8k ov \api^€TaL dXA' avro ecrrtv 
ovo-ia airlLv). When the writer declares that it is by faith we 
understand that the world was created, he does not mean that 
faith imparts reality to the creation ; nor, when he says, e.g., the 
patriarchs lived in the expectation of a celestial Fatherland, 
that they thereby made this more real to themselves. No doubt 
this was true in a sense; but the author's point is that just 
because these objects of hope were real, because, e.g., God had 
prepared for them a City, therefore they were justified in having 
faith. It is faith as the reflex of eternal realities or rewards 
promised by God which is fundamental in this chapter, the faith 
by which a good man lives, (b) Similarly, faith is not the eXeyxos 
of things unseen in the sense of " proof," which could only mean 


that it tests, or rather attests, their reality. The existence of 
human faith no doubt proves that there is some unseen object 
which calls it out, but the writer wishes to show, not the reality 
of these unseen ends of God — he assumes these — but the fact 
and force of believing in them with absolute confidence. Such 
erroneous interpretations arise out of the notion that the writer 
is giving an abstract definition of mcms, whereas he is describing 
it, in view of what follows, as an active conviction which moves 
and moulds human conduct. The happiest description of it is, 
" seeing Him who is invisible " (v. 27 ) ; and this idea is applied 
widely ; sometimes it is belief in God as against the world and its 
forces, particularly the forces of human injustice or of death, 
sometimes belief in the spirit as against the senses, sometimes 
again (and this is prominent in n 5f -) belief in the future as 
against the present. 

In the papyri {e.g. in OP. ii. pp. 153, 176, where in the plural it="the 
whole body of documents bearing on the ownership of a person's property . . . 
deposited in the archives, and forming the evidence of ownership ") vtt6o-- 
Tacris means occasionally the entire collection of title-deeds by which a man 
establishes his right to some property (cp. Moulton in Manchester Theological 
Essays, i. 174; Expositor, Dec. 1903, pp. 438 f.); but while this might 
suggest the metaphor, the metaphor means "confident assurance." The 
original sense of substance or reality, as in the de Mundo, 4 (crvWr)pdrjP de tQiv 
hi dipt (pavTacr/xdruiv to. pAv 4<tti kclt e'/A<pa<Tiv ra de ko.0' inrdiXTacnv), survives 
in Dante's interpretation {Paradiso, xxiv. 61 f. ). He quotes the words as a 
definition of faith : 

" Fede e sustanzia di cose sperate, 
ed argumento delle non parventi," 

adding that he understands this to be its "quidity"or essence. But the 
notion that faith imparts a real existence to its object is read into the text. 
Faith as virdaraais is "realization" of the unseen, but "realization" only in 
our popular, psychological sense of the term. The legal or logical sense of 
€\€7x°5> as P r °of (in classical Greek and elsewhere, e.g. Jos. BJ. iv. 5. 4, 
r)v 5' oiir HXeyxos ns rdv Karr/yopov/xivuv, otire TeKfir)pi.ov) is out of place 
here. The existence of human faith is in one sense a proof that an invisible 
order exists, which can alone explain men acting as they do ev Trio-ret. But 
the writer assumes that, and declares that ttIcttis lives and moves in the 
steady light of the unseen realities. The sense of " test," as in Epictetus, 
iii. 10. II (ivddd' 6 i:\eyxos rod Trpdy/xaros, 77 doKifiacria rod <pi\o<TO(j)ovi'Tos), 
is as impossible here as that of "rebuke"; the force of tt/otis in n 3 " 40 
rests on its subjective sense as an inner conviction, which forms a motive for 
human life, and this determines the meaning of virdaracns and fkeyxos as 
applied to it in the introductory description. 

This connexion of faith with the future is emphasized by 
Philo in de Migratione Abrahami, 9, commenting on Gn 12 1 r)v 
aoi 8et£a>. It is Sei^to, not SeUvvpn, he points out — eh fxaprvpCav 
7rto~T€ws -qv iTTLCTTevcrev r) if/v^r) 6ew, ovk e/c twv a.7TOTe\ecrfAa.T0)v 
lT7lhi.LKVVp.ivri TO CU^ttpiCTTOJ', dAX' Ik TTpoaSoKias TWV p.e\\0VT(i)V 
. . . vop.icra.cra r)Br/ Trapetvou ra. p.r/ Trapovra 01a. tyjv tov vTrocr\o- 


ftevov PefiaioTrjTa. ttIvtiv [cp. He IO 23 ], aya8bv reXeiov, dOXov 
cvprjrai. Faith thus relies upon God's promise and eagerly ex- 
pects what is to come ; indeed it lives for and in the future. 
So our writer uses mores, almost as Paul used eX-iris (psycho- 
logically the two being often indistinguishable). Nor is this maris 
a novelty in our religion (v. 2 ), he adds, iv tcw'ty] yap ep,apTuprj0rjcrav 
(7 8 ) 01 Trpea|3uTepoi. 'Ei/=oia (Taunts) as in V 6 16 9 22 io 10 ; Si' 
rjs epapTupi]0T] (v. 4 ), papTupr]0e'rres Sid rfjs iriorecus (v. 39 ). Oi 
irpeoPuTepoi ( = ot irarepes, i 1 ) never bears this exact sense else- 
where in the NT, the nearest 1 parallel being Mt i5 2 = Mk 7 3 - 5 
(ttjv Trapd8o<TLV tujv irpecrfivTepwv). Philo (de Abrahamo 46), 
indeed, noting that Abraham the man of faith is the first man 
called 7rpecr/?irrepo9 in scripture (Gn 24 1 ), reflects that this is 

significant ; 6 ydp akyjdeiq. ir pea (Svt epos ovk iv p.rjKei ^poVouv dAA' iv 

€7rcuv€T(3 /cat rcXeta) (3itp Oewpelrat.. Aged worldly people can only 
be called longlived children, t6v 8e <ppovrjo-etos kol\ crocpias koI rrjs 
7rpos Oebv mtrrecos ipao~8evTa Aeyoi tis av ivSiKios elvai 7rpeo-/3vTepov. 
But our author weaves no such fancies round the word, though 
he probably understood the term in an honorific sense (cp. 
Philo, de Sobrietate, 4, TrpecrfivTepov . . . tov yepois kou Ttp.r)s d£iov 
ovo/i.a£ei). For ep-apTuprjOrjaai' in this sense of getting a good 
report, cp. B. Latyschev's Inscript. Antiquae Orae Septent. i. 
2I 26f. lp.apTvprj6r) tol>5 virep cpiAias kwovvovs . . . irapafioXevo-d- 
pevos : Syll. 366 28 (i A.D.) apxiTexTovas p.apTvpr)6 'evTas viro ttj<s 
otp.voTa.Tris [fiov\r)s], and the instances quoted in Deissmann's 
Bible Studies (265). 

Before describing the scriptural record of the irpeo-0uTepoi, 
however, the writer pauses to point out the supreme proof of 
ttiotis as •jrpayp.dTwv' eXeyxos ou pXeirop.eVaii'. The very world 
within which they showed their faith and within which we are to 
show our faith, was the outcome of what is invisible (v. 3 ), and 
this conviction itself is an act of faith, ru'cn-ei voo\ip.ev (cp. 
Ro i 20 : "vociv is in Hellenistic Greek the current word for the 
apprehension of the divine in nature," A. T. Goodrick on Wis 
I3 4 ) KarrjpTiaGcu (of creation, Ps 73 16 cru KOT-qpTLau) rjXiov ko.1 
o-zXrjvrjv) tous alums (i 2 ) p^pan 0eou (the divine fiat here), eis 
(with consecutive infinitive) t6 p,rj Ik <\>o.\.vo\i.iv<av t6 ^\e-n6p.evov 
yeyo^eVai (perfect of permanence). The firj goes with <pa.Lvop.evwv, 
but is thrown before the preposition as, e.g., in Ac i 5 oi peTa 
7roXXds Tairras r/p.epa<; (according to a familiar classical con- 
struction, Blass, § 433. 3). 2 Faith always answers to revelation, 

1 W. Brandt (Judische Reinheitslehre und ihre Beschreibung in den 
Evangelien, 19 10, pp. 2, 3) thinks that this expression might apply to the 
more recent teachers as well as to the ancient authorities. 

2 In 2 Mac 7 28 ok e| 6vtuv iiroL-qcrev avra 6 debs (A), the ovk goes with 
the verb. 



and creation is the first revelation of God to man. Creation by 
the fiat of God was the orthodox doctrine of Judaism, and 
anyone who read the OT would accept it as the one theory 
about the origin of the world (cp. e.g. the description of God in 
the Mechilta, 33^, on Ex 14 31 etc. as "He who spoke and the 
world was," D^iyn iTTTl \QW and Apoc. Bar. 14 17 : "when of old 

' T . TT .»- TV , ft 

there was no world with its inhabitants, Thou didst devise and 
speak with a word, and forthwith the works of creation stood 
before Thee"). But the explicitness of this sentence about 
creation out of what is invisible, suggests that the writer had 
other views in mind, which he desired to repudiate. Possibly 
Greek theories like those hinted at in Wis io 17 about the world 1 
being created e£ ap.6p<pov vA^s, or the statement in the de 
aeternitate mundi, 2, where Philo declares Ik tov /177 ovtos ouSev 
yiVtTai, quoting Empedocles to this effect, though elsewhere Philo 
does agree that the world was made out of nothing, as, e.g., in the 
de Somniis, i. 1 3 (6 6eo<i ra travra ycvvT/cras ov /xovov eis TOvp.<pav\<s 
rjyayei/ dAAa /cat a irporepov ovk yjv eTroirjcrev, ov 8r)p.t.ovpy6s p.6vov 
ik\a kclI KTiWqs auros tov, cp. also Apoc. Bar. 21 4 : "O Thou 
. . . that hast called from the beginning of the world that which 
did not yet exist," and Slav. En. 24 2 : " I will tell thee now what 
things I created from the non-existent, and what visible things 
from the invisible"). What the pj c}>aii'6p.€i'a were, our author 
does not suggest. R. Akiba is said to have applied the words 
of Ps 10 1 7 to anyone who rashly speculated on the original 
material of the world. Our author does not speculate ; it is 
very doubtful if he intends (Windisch, M'Neill) to agree with 
Philo's idea (in the de opificio Mundi, 16, de confus. ling. 34) of the 
c/>atvd/xevos ovro% Koo-p.0% being modelled on the dcrioju.aTos na\ 
votjtos or archetypal ideas, for the language of 8 5 is insufficient 
to bear the weight of this inference. 

To take els tc» . . . 7€Yove'vai as final, is a forced construction. The 
phrase does not describe the motive of KaTijprtadai, and if the writer had 
meant, "so that we might know the seen came from the unseen," 2 he would 
have written this, instead of allowing the vital words might know to be 

The roll-call of the irp6<rPuT€poi (vv. 4f ) opens with Abel and 
Enoch, two men who showed their 71-to-Tis before the deluge 
(vv. 4 ' 6 ). One was murdered, the other, as the story went, never 
died ; and the writer uses both tales to illustrate his point about 


1 LXX of Gn I 2 ri dt yij f)t> a.6paros ical dKaracrKeiWTos. 

2 At an early period rb fiXeiroiievov was altered into ret /SXexi/teva 
(DKL*6. 104. 218. 326. 1288. r vg syr arm), to conform with the previous 
plurals pXeiro/jitvwv and (paivo/xtvuv. 


* It was by faith (irlorei, the rhetorical anaphora repeated throughout the 
section) that Abel offered God a richer sacrifice than Cain did, and thus (hi 
t5s, sc. irlffrem) won from God the record of being "just," on the score of 
what he gave ; he died, but by his faith he is speaking to us still, 5 It was 
by faith that Enoch was taken to heaven, so that he never died ("he was not 
overtaken by death, for God had taken him away "). For before he was taken to 
heaven, his record was that " he had satisfied God"; 6 and apart from faith it 
is impossible (ahwarov, sc. tan) " to satisfy him," for the man who draws near 
to God must believe that he exists, and that he does reward those who seek him. 

The faith of Abel and of Enoch is not moris eXm^o/ieVwy, 
which is not introduced till v. 7 . In 4 Mac i6 20f - the illustrations 
of steadfast faith are (a) Abraham sacrificing Isaac, (b) Daniel in 
the den of lions, and (c) the three men in the fiery furnace ; but 
in i8 llf - the list of noble sufferers includes (a) Abel, (b) Isaac, 
(c) Joseph in prison, (d) Phinehas, (e) the three men in the fiery 
furnace, and (/) Daniel. Sirach's eulogy of famous men in 
Israel (44-50) has a wider sweep : Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, 
Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, Joshua, Caleb, the judges, 
Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Josiah, 
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, the twelve prophets, Zerubbabel, Joshua 
the son of Josedek, Nehemiah, and the highpriest Simon (i.e. 
down to the second century B.C.). 

The first illustration (v. 4 ) is much less natural than most of 
those that follow. In the story of Gn 4 4 * 8 , lir&ev 6 8e6<s brl *A/3eX 
Kal i-rrl tois Swpois airov. But why God disregarded Cain's sacri- 
fice and preferred Abel's, our author does not explain. Josephus 
(Ant. i. 54) thought that an offering of milk and animals was 
more acceptable to God as being natural (tois avTo/xai-ois koI Kara. 
(fiva-Lv yeyovdo-i) than Cain's cereal offering, which was wrung out 
of the ground by a covetous man ; our author simply argues 
that the irXeiwv dvcria of Abel at the very dawn of history was 
prompted by faith. He does not enter into the nature of" this 
irXeiom (in sense of Mt 6 25 or Mk 12 43 f) xw a a ^ T V V tttw^ 
7rA.€iov 7ravTwv fiefiXirjKw) Qudiav impel (as in i 4 ) Kd'iv, offered at 
the first act of worship recorded in scripture. What seems to 
be implied is that faith must inspire any worship that is to 
be acceptable to God from anyone who is to be God's 
SiKaios (io 38 ). Josephus held that Abel St/caioo-w^s iTri/xeXciTo, 
the blood of "A/3eA tov BiKatov is noted in Mt 23 s5 , and the 
Genesis-words IttiScv 6 0eos are here expanded by our author 
into cp.apTupr]8r| el^ai SiKaios. Note the practical equivalence of 
Swpa and Ovaia, as already in 5 1 etc. There is nothing in Upos 
'Efipaiovs like Philo's effort (Quaest. in Gen. 4 4 ) to distinguish 
between Swpa and Ovarian as follows : 6 fxiv 6vu>v eViStaipei, t6 fJLev 
ai/j.a tc3 (3w/j.w irpo)(£o>v, to. Se Kpe'a otfcaSe ko/jli^wv' 6 St Swpovyaevos 
oAov eoLK€ 7rapa^cop€iv t<3 \a/x(3dvovTL' 6 fxlv ovv (piAavTOS Siavo/xtus 
otos 6 Katv, 6 8e <piXd0£os Swp^Tui otov 6 "A/ScX. 


n\ctova: of the conjectural emendations, IIIONA and HAIONA (Cobet, 
Vollgraff ), the latter is favoured by Justin's reference in Dial. 29 (evddicqcre 
yap teal els to. Hdvr], /cat t&s dvcrias ijSiov Trap' r)filv 7) irap' vixQiv \afxj3dvei' rls 
otv in fiol irepiTOfj.rjs \670s, vtrb tov deou /xapTvpTjOivn;), and is admitted into 
the text by Baljon and Blass (so Maynard in Exp. 1 vii. 164 f., who infers 
from fxaprvprjOivTi that Justin knew Ilpds 'E/Jpcu'ous, the original text of the 
latter being avrip tou Oeov). In Demosth. Prooem. 23, ■fjSiov has been cor- 
rupted into irKtiov. 

In what follows, (a) the original text (u.apTupourros . . . au-rw 
tou 0eou) is preserved in p 13 Clem. (om. ™ 6ew). (b) avT<3 then 
became avTov under the influence of the LXX, and t<3 6eG> was 
inserted after irpoo-rjveyKe to complete the sense (N c D c K L P 
r vg syr boh arm Orig. Chrys. etc.). Finally, (c) tov Oeov became 
assimilated to the preceding t<2 OeiZ, and p.apTvpovvTo<s . . . avrov 
t<5 Oew (N* A D* 33. 104. 326. 131 1. 1836. eth) became current, 
as though Abel witnessed to God, instead of God witnessing to 
Abel. Thus after Trpoo-rjveyKe the Greek originally ran : 01 rjs 
€u.apTupr)0r| eu'cu oikcuos, fiapTupourros em tois Scopois auTto tou 0eou. 
Then another application of the LXX was added. The phrase in 
Gn 4 10 (4><j)vr) at/i,aTos tov a.8eX(pov o~ov (3oa 7rpo? /xe) had already 
suggested to Philo that Abel was in a sense still living (quod det. 
potiori insid. soleat, 14: 6 "A/3eX, to 7rapaSo£6VaTOi', avrjprfTai re kcu 
£77' avrjprjTCU p.ev ck ttjs tov acppovos Siavoias, t,fj 8e t^v iv Oeio £cot)v 
ev8a.Lp.ova' p.apTvprjo-ei Se to XPV°~@* V Xoyiov, iv w " cpcovf) " ^pdi/x.€vos 
kol " fiowv" (Gen 4 10 ) a TreirovOev vtto KaKov awSerov T7]Xavyw<; 
evpLo~K€.TaC 77-ais yap 6 p.7]KeT wv 8iaXeyea0ai SwaTos;). Our author 
takes a similar line here : kcu 81* ciuttjs (i.e. men-ecus) airoGaywi' Iti 
XaXei. Even after death, Abel's cry is represented as reaching 
God, so Philo puts it (ibid. 20), £17 pkv yap, cos kcu irpoTepov e(pyjv, 6 
Tcdvavai Sokcov, ci ye kcu ikc't^s cov Oeov kcu cfxavfj xpco/ievos evpio-xeTai. 
Only, it is not the fact that the cry was one for retribution (12 24 ) 
which is stressed here, not the fact that his blood cried to God 
after he died ; but, as AaAeiV is never used of speaking to God, 
what the writer means to suggest (as in 3 15 ) is that Abel's 
faith still speaks to us (AaAei, not the historic present, but = in the 
record). Not even in 12 24 does he adopt the idea of a divine 
nemesis for the sufferings of the pious in past generations. He 
does not represent the blood of martyrs like Abel as crying from 
the ground for personal vengeance ; he has nothing of the spirit 
which prompted the weird vision of the wronged souls under the 
altar crying out for retribution (Rev 6 10 ). "Eti XaXei means, in a 
general sense, that he is an eloquent, living witness to all ages 
(so recently Seeberg). Primasius (" qui enim alios suo exemplo 
admonet ut justi sint, quomodo non loquitur?") and Chry- 
SOStom (tovto kcu tov £fjv 0-qp.eiov ecrn, Kal tov 7rapa iravTiov 
aSecrOai, Oavad^ecrOai Kai p.aKapi£,eo~Oai' 6 yap 7rapatvcov tois aAAois 
SiKatots e'vai AaAei) put this well. The witness is that 7tuttis may 

XI. 4, 5.] THE FAITH OF ENOCH 165 

have to face the last extreme of death (12 4 ), and that it is not 
abandoned by God ; &iro6av<&v is never the last word upon a 
SiKcuos. Compare Tertullian's argument from Abel, in De Scor- 
ptace, 8 : "a primordio enim justitia vim patitur. Statim ut coli 
Deus coepit, invidiam religio sortita est : qui Deo placuerat, 
occiditur, et quidem a fratre ; quo proclivius impietas alienum 
sanguinem sectaretur, a suo auspicata est. Denique non modo 
justorum, verum etiam et prophetarum." 

The difficulty of XaXe? led to the tame correction XaXetVcu in D K L d eth, 
etc. AaXetYcu as passive ( = \iy€rai) is nearly as impossible as middle ; to say 
that Abel, even after death, is still spoken of, is a tepid idea. The writer of 
Hebrews meant more than an immortal memory, more even than Epictetus 
when he declared that by dying 6Ve (dei Kal ws e8ei one may do even more 
good to men than he did in life, like Socrates (iv. 1. 169, /ecu vvv 2w/cpdrous 
iirodaudvTOS ovdkv Jjttov t) /ecu irXelov tb<pe\i/j.6s iaTiv avdpwwois r) pv-qixij &v in 
£G>v iirpa^ev 7) direv). 

The irioTts 'EfoSx (vv. 6 - 6 ) is conveyed in an interpretation 
of the LXX of Gn 5 24 /ecu evrjpio-Trjo-ev 'Evw^ tu! Oeoj' /ecu ou^ 
rjvpLa-KeTo, SioVi /AtTc'^Kev avrov 6 #€os. The writer takes the two 
clauses in reverse order. Enoch jieTeTe'0r| tou (with infinitive of 
result) firj i8eii> QdvaTov (Lk 2 26 ) Kal ("indeed," introducing the 
quotation) ofy rjupio-KeTo (on this Attic augmented form, which 
became rare in the koivtq, see Thackeray, 200) Sum p.eTiQr\Kev 
cuVrcV 6 Geos, irpo yap (resuming Tricrm /xercTe^T/) ttjs fieTaOeo-ews 
u€(iapTupT]Tai (in the scripture record ; hence the perfect, which 
here is practically aoristic) cur|peoTr|iceVcH tw Geou (cuapeo-Tetv in its 
ordinary Hellenistic sense of a servant giving satisfaction to his 
master). For eupuxKco-Gcu = die (be overtaken or surprised by 
death), 1 cp. Epict. iii 5. 5 f., ovk oTSas on /cat vdcros Kal Odvaros 
KaraXafieiv rjp.a<; oepciAoucrtv Tt ttotc 7rotovvTas ; . . . ep.01 p.iv yap 
Kara\r]<p6rjvai yevoiro /atiSevos aAXov iTrip.iXovp.evw i) tijs TTpoaipetreojs 
ttjs £p.r}<; . . . Tavra eVir^Seijwv OeXw evpcOrjvai: iv. IO. 12, dya#6s 
wv a.7ro9avrj, yevvaiav irpa^iv iTriTcX&v. cVei yap Set 7rdvT(os airodaveiv, 
avdyKT] rt 7tot€ TTOLOvvra eipedrjvaL ... Tt ovv #e'Aeis ttolwv €vpe$rjvai 
vtto tov Oavdrov ; Here evpeOrjvai (with or Without Tor) 0avaTou) 
is a synonym for KaraXrjcpdrjvai or aTroOaveiv, as in Ph 3 9 (evptdw 
iv avrw). 

Both Clem. Rom. (9 2 ) and Origen, like Tertullian, appear to have read 
ovx evpedt) avrov Oavaros in Gn 5 s4 ; and Blass therefore reads here ovx 
Tjvpl(TKeT[o) avrov, especially as it suits his scheme of rhythm. This 
is linguistically possible, as €vpiiXKtcrdai — ht (cp. Fr. se trouver), e.g. in Lk 
17 18 , Ph 2 8 . M€T€0tjk£V was turned into the pluperfect p-ereriO^Kev by N* 
D° L 5. 203. 256. 257. 326. 337. 378. 383. 491. 506. 623. 161 1, etc. 

Traditions varied upon Enoch (EBi. 1295a), and even Alex- 
andrian Judaism did not always canonize him in this way. (a) 

1 In Sifre Deut. 304, the angel of death sought Moses, but found him not 
(ixyp i6[). 


The author of Wis 4 10f -, without mentioning his name, quotes 
Gn 5 24 as if it meant that God removed Enoch from life early 
(/cat £cov (jL€Ta$v dp.apTu>Xu>v /xeTereOr]) in order to prevent him from 
sharing the sin of his age (rjpirdyrj, p.rj /caKta d\\d£r] (rvveaiv avrov, 

r) SdAos d7raTrjarj ij/vxr/v avrov) ; he departed young, but his 
removal was a boon mercifully granted by God to his youthful 
piety. (b) Philo views him in de Abrahamo, 3 (cp. de praem. 
3-4), as a type of ^rdvoia. Quoting Gn 5 s4 he points out that 
fierdOecns means a change for the better, and that oix rjlpco-KCTo 
is therefore appropriate, ti3 tw dp^aiov /cat iTri\.rj7TTov dira\r)\L(pdai 
fiiov /cat r)cpavio~6ai. /cat firjKiO' evptcr/c«cr#ai, KaBdivsp €t p.rj8k ttjv 
dpxqv eyevero. The Greek version of Sir 44 16 echoes the same 

tradition ("Evco^ evrjpecrTrjo-ev Kvpiw Kal p.€T€T€0r], VTroStiypLa 

/u.€Tavotas Tats yeveats), viz. that fieTeOr/Kev implies the effacement 
of Enoch's blameable past, or at any rate that he was enrolled in 
better company. Our author does not share this view. His 
general deduction in v. 6 expands the description of moris in v. 1 . 
To say that a man has satisfied God is to pronounce the highest 
possible eulogy upon him, says Philo x (de Abrahamo, 6, " Tci <9ew 
evrjpea-Trjaev' " ov ri yivotr av iv rfj {j/vo~ei Kpelrrov ; Tt's KaA.oKotya#tas 
eVapyeo-Tepos eAcyxos;), though he is referring to Noah, not to 
Enoch. Our author explains that to satisfy God necessarily 
implies iricrris (v. 6 ) in the sense of io 35 . riicrreucrai yap Set Toy 
irpocrepxoaekoi' to 0ew (4 16 etc.) oti tariv (so Epict. iii. 26. 15, 
otl Kal ecTTi /cat KaAws Sioikci Ta oAa) Kal tois ck£t]touo-ik auToe 
fjnaGa-rroSoTTjs (cf. v. 26 io 35 ) yiVeTai. As for the first element of 
belief, in the existence of God (oti eone), the early commentators, 
from Chrysostom (cm Icmv* ov to tl iariv : cp. Tert. adv. Marc. 
i. 17, "primo enim quaeritur an sit, et ita qualis sit") and Jerome 
(on Is 6 1 " 7 , in Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3. no : "cumque idem 
apostolus Paulus scribit in alio loco, Credere oportet accedentem 
ad Deum quia est, non posuit quis et qualis sit debere cognosci, 
sed tantum quod sit. Scimus enim esse Deum, scimusque quid 
non sit ; quid autem et qualis sit, scire non possumus ") onwards, 
emphasize the fact that it is God's existence, not his nature, 
which is the primary element of faith. Philo does declare that 
the two main problems of enquiry are into God's existence and 
into his essence (de Monarch, i. 4-6), but our author takes the 
more practical, religious line, and he does not suggest how faith in 

1 Philo fancifully allegorizes the phrase in the de mutat. notnin. 4 : 
tpdelperai ovv eltcdrus rb yewdes Kal KaraXverai, orav 6'\os 5t' 8\uv 6 vods 
tvapeartiv irpoiXrjTai dap' cnrdviov 8k Kal rb yivos Kal /j.6\i$ eupicrKSfievov, 
tt\7)i> ovk afivvarov yei>e"adaf S^Xot de rb xPV&Qt 1 ' ^ 7r ' T °v 'Evwx \6yiov r68e' 
etirip{(7T7]cre 5e 'Euwx Ttp de<$ Kal ovx evpiUKero' trod yap <av> <jKe\pdixev6s tis 
eSpoi Tayadbv tovto ; . . . o(>x evplcTKero 6 evapijaTrjcra srpbiros ry Ocip, u>5 
av dr/Trov virapKTbs [i&v uc, diroKpyirrdfievos 8e Kal ttjv els rairrb otivoSov tj/jluh 
diro5i8pd<7K(i)i>, iveidrj Kal fteTaTedijvai. Xtytrai. 

XI. 6, 7.] FAITH AND GOD 1 67 

God's existence is to be won or kept. When objectors asked 
him why he believed in the existence of the gods, Marcus 
Aurelius used to reply : irpwTOV p.ev Kal oif/€L oparoi euriV liruTa 
fjuevToi ov8k ttjv ifrvxyv tt]v ipavTov ewpa/ca *ai o/xws Tipu)" ovtlos ovv 

KO.I TOVS 0€OVS, i£ WV T>}? 8wdp€<D9 CLVTWV £«a(7T0T€ 7T€lp(l>paL, €K 

rovTmv otl T€ elcrt KaTaXap.fia.vto koli alSovpaL (xii. 28). We have 
no such argument against atheism here ; only the reminder that 
faith does imply a belief in the existence of God — a reminder 
which would appeal specially to those of the readers who had been 
born outside Judaism. Belief in the existence of God is for our 
author, however, one of the elementary principles of the Chris- 
tian religion (6 1 ) ; the stress here falls on the second element, 
■ecu . . . fuaGcnroSorrjs y^ £T(U - When the Stoics spoke about 
belief in the divine existence, they generally associated it with 
belief in providence; both Seneca (Ep. xcv. 50, "primus est 
deorum cultus deos credere . . . scire illos esse qui praesident 
mundo, quia universa vi sua temperant, qui humani generis 
tutelam gerunt interdum curiosi singulorum ") and Epictetus (e.g. 
ii. 14. II, Xeyowiv ol (piXoarocpoL otl p.a6elv Set Trpwrov tovto, otl 
Ictti deos ical TTpovoel toiv oXlov : Enchir. xxxi. 1, 1-775 irepl tovs 6eoi>s 
evcrefiuas tardto otl to KvpiioTaTov e/cetvo Iotlv 6p9a<; V7ro\i]ij/€L<; nepl 


contemporary witnesses to this connexion of ideas, which, indeed, 
is as old as Plato (Leges, 905^, on p.ev yap deoi r curly *ai 
avOpuyjriov €7rip.€XouvTai). 

Tots cK^-roCo-iy aoTov (for which p 18 P read the simple ^rp-ovaiv) 
denotes, not philosophic enquiry, but the practical religious quest, 
as in the OT (e.g. Ac 15 17 , Ro 3 11 ). This is not Philo's view, 
e.g., in the Leg. Alleg. 3 16 €i S« ^TiTOio-a evprjtreis 0e6v a8r]\ov, 
7roXXoTs yap ovk e<paveptoo-ev kavTOV, dXX' aTeXi} ttjv o-7rov&r)v Q-XP L 
iravTOS ta-xpV e^apxei //.cVtoi Trpos /nerowiav dya#a>v /cat i/^iXov to 
^TiTetv p.6vov, del yap at cttl to. KaXa oppai Kav tov TeXous an^wcri 
tov<; xpw/xcVous irpoev<ppaivovcrLv. But our author has a simpler 
belief; he is sure that the quest of faith is always successful. 
By God's reward he means that the faith of man reaching out to 
God is never left to itself, but met by a real satisfaction ; God 
proves its rewarder. Such faith is a conviction which illustrates 
1 1 1 , for the being of God is an unseen reality and his full reward 
is at present to be hoped for. 

A still more apt illustration of mores as the eXcyxos TTpdypaTwv 
ov fl\eirop.£viov which becomes a motive in human life, now occurs 
in (v. 7 ) the faith which Noah showed at the deluge when he 
believed, against all appearances to the contrary, that he must 
obey God's order and build an ark, although it is true that in 
this case the unseen was revealed and realized within the lifetime 
of the SiKaios. Like Philo, our author passes from Enoch to 


Noah, although for a different reason. Philo ranks Noah as the 
lover of God and virtue, next to Enoch the typical penitent (de 
Abrah. 3, 5, cikotw? t<3 //.eravcvoT/Kcm to.ttu Kara, to ££r)<; tov dco<f>i\f) 
teal <t>i\dpeTov) ; here both are grouped as examples of moris. 
Sirach (44 17f# ) also passes at once from Enoch to Noah the 8ik<hos. 

7 // was by faith (Trio-ret) that Noah, after being told by God (xpy/Jario-dels, 
8 B , sc. irapa. tov deov) of what was still unseen (tGiv /xrjdiTrui fiXeirofiivui', i.e. 
the deluge), reverently (ev\a(3r]dels, cp. 5 7 ) constructed (Ka.reaKeva.o-ev, as I P 
3 20 ) an ark to save his household ; thus he condemned the world and became 
heir of the righteousness that follows faith. 

The writer recalls, though he does not quote from, the story 
of Gn 6 13f \ nioT€i goes closely with euXd^Geis KdTCo-iceuacrei', 
and TT€pl t. fx. p\€Tro|i,eVo)»' goes with xp'HH'aTio'Oeis (as Jos. Ant. iv. 
102, 6^p7//xaTi^€TO 7rept wv iBetro), not with ev\a/3r]6ei<;, which is not 
a synonym for (poftrjOets — the writer is at pains always to exclude 
fear or dread from faith (cp. vv. 23 - 27 ). Els o-conqpiar is to be 
taken as = " to save alive " (Ac 27 20 7rSo-a cA/n-ls tov cri6£eo-0ai 17/uas, 
27" tovto yap Trpos t>js vfierepas (ramjpias VTrap^ei). Ai tjs {I.e. Dy 
the faith he thus exhibited ; as both of the following clauses 
depend on this, it cannot refer to the ark, which would suit only 
the first) KaTCKpike toc Koo-fj.ot', where KaTexpivev corresponds to 
what is probably the meaning of Wis 4 16 KaraKpLvel 8k oYkcuos 
Kap.(bv tovs £ujvtcis do-€/3as, though nap.o)V ( = davwv) is not the 
point of Hebrews, which regards Noah's action as shaming the 
world, throwing its dark scepticism into relief against his own 
shining faith in God (Josephus, in Ant. i. 75, puts it less 
pointedly : 6 Se #eos rovrov pXv t^s Si/caioowr?? rryarrrjcre, KarcSiKa^e 
0" c/cetvous) ; K<5o-p,og here (as in v. 38 ) means sinful humanity, 
almost in the sense so common in the Johannine vocabulary, 
the Kocr/xos ao-e(3wv of 2 P 2 5 . Philo (de congressu erudit. 17) 
notes that Noah was the first man in the OT to be specially 
called (Gn 6 9 ) 8ik<uos ; but our author, who has already called 
Abel and Noah Stxato?, does not use this fact; he contents 
himself with saying that ttjs Kara morii' Siicaioo-urrjs eyeVcTO kXtjpo- 
rojios, i.e. he became entitled to, came into possession of, the 
SiKaioo-vvrj which is the outcome or property (Kcn-a ktA.., as in 
Hellenistic Greek, cp. Eph i 15 , a periphrasis for the possessive 
genitive) of such faith as he showed. AiKatoo-vvrj here is the 
state of one who is God's Si'kcuos (6 Sikcuos p.ov, io 38 ). A vivid 
description of Noah's faith is given in Mark Rutherford's novel, 
The Deliverance, pp. 162, 163. 

The faith of Abraham, as might be expected, receives more 
attention than that of any other (cp. Ac 7 2f -). It is described in 
three phases ( 8 - 9 " 10 - 17 - 19 ) ; the faith of his wife Sara is attached to 
his ( n ' 12 ), and a general statement about his immediate descend- 


ants is interpolated ( 13 - 16 ) before the writer passes from the second 
to the third phase. As in Sirach and Philo, Abraham follows 
Noah. "Ten generations were there from Noah to Abraham, 
to show how great was His longsuffering ; for all the generations 
were provoking Him, till Abraham our father came and received 
the reward of them all " (Pirke Aboth 5 3 ). 

8 It was by faith that Abraham obeyed his call to go forth to a place 
which he would receive as an inheritance ; he went forth, although he did not 
know where he was to go. 9 It was by faith that he " sojourned' 1 '' in the 
promised land, as in a foreign country, residing in tents, as did Isaac and 
facob, who were co-heirs with him of the same promise ; i0 he was waiting for 
the City with its fixed foundations, whose builder and maker is God. 

The first phase (v. 8 ) is the call to leave Mesopotamia and 
travel West, which is described in Gn i2 l£ . The writer does not 
dwell, like Philo (de Abrahamo, 14), on the wrench of tearing 
oneself from one's home. But, as Philo says that Abraham 
started a//.a t<3 KeXevardrjvaL, our author begins with xaXouficfos. 
When the call came, he obeyed it — uinJKouo-ev' c^eXGeti' (epexegetic 
infinitive), a reminiscence of Gn 12 14 kou elirev Kvpios t<3 

'A/Jpa/i,, "E£eA#€ . . . kcu iiropevOr] 'Afipap. Kadairep iXd\rj(rev avraJ 

Kvpios. He went out from Mesopotamia, jjltj eTuordp.ei'os iroC 
epxeTai, his faith being tested by this uncertainty. So Philo (de 
Migr. Abrah. 9) notes the point of the future 8ei$<n in Gn 12 1 ; 
it is cts p.apTvpiav 7rurretos rjv tiriartvcrev rj i(rv\n] Octi. 

The insertion of 6 before KaXovfievos (A D 33. 256. 467. 1739. 2127 sah 
Loh arm Thdt. ) turns the phrase into an allusion to Abraham's change of 
name in Gn 17 5 , which is irrelevant to his earlier call to leave the far East. 

The second phase (vv. 9 - 10 ) is the trial of patience. He did 
not lose heart or hope, even when he did reach the country 
appointed to him, although he had to wander up and down it as 
a mere foreigner, els (=&, Mk 13 16 , Ac 8 40 ) . . . dMoTpiae. 
He found the land he had been promised still in the hands of 
aliens, and yet he lived there, lived as an alien in his own 
country ! napwKrjaei' is the opposite of Karwiajcrei' (as in Gn 37 1 ), 
and with a fine touch of paradox the writer therefore goes on to 
describe Abraham as iv o-KTjrals KaToiKTJCTas, contented patiently 
to lead a wandering, unsettled life. Such was all the " residence " 
he ever had ! What sustained him was his turns (v. 10 ), his eager 
outlook for the City, tj$ rexfiTTjs leal 8t||juoupy6s 6 0eos. Compare 
the scholion on Lucian'syiw. Trag. 38 : ov St) 6eov naX Srjp.iovpybv 
6 evcre/?^? avevprjKois \oyicrp.6<; Z<popov koX tc^vlttjv tov 7ravros 
Trpoevrpe-mo-ev. Tex^'T^s is not a LXX term, and only began to 
be used of God in Alexandrian Judaism (e.g. in Wis 13 1 ). This 
is the one place in the NT where it is applied to God ; after- 
wards (e.g. Did. 12 3 ; Diognetus, 7 2 ) it became more common. 
Aruxioupyos is equally unique as a NT term for God, but it occurs 


in 2 Mac 4 1 , and was used in classical literature frequently for a 
subordinate deity (cp. Schermann, Texte u. Untersuchungen, 
xxxiv. 26. 23). In Apoc. Esdrae (ed. Tisch. 32) the phrase 
occurs, 6 Trdo-qs rrj<; KTtcrecDs Brj/j.tovpyo's. Our author simply writes 
Teyvi-nis koI S^fiioupyos as a rhetorical expression for maker or 
creator (8 2 ), without differentiating the one term from the other, 
as "designer" and "constructor" (cp. Philo, quis rer. div. 27, 
6 Tex vtTr / s • • • ^jviKa tov Koa-fxov i$r)fjuovpy€i. : de mut. notn. 4, 
Wf]K€ to. iravTa 6 yewrjaas koll Te^vtreucras irar-qp, wcttc to u iyw el/xi 
deos cos " lo~ov cctti t<5 " iyw el/xt 71-01777775 kcu 8rjp,i.ovpy6<i "). 

In 9b the writer adds a new touch (as if to suggest that 
Abraham propagated his 7tio-tis) in p.eT& 'lo-adic iea\ MaiaSp l — who 
shared the same outlook — tG>v o-uykX^po^ijiwv (a K01V77, though 
not a LXX, term for co-heir) tt]s eirayyeXias ttjs aurfis. Their 
individual faith is noted later (vv. 20 - 21 ). In sketching his fine 
mystical interpretation of Abraham's hope, the author ignores 
the fact that Jacob, according to Gn 33 17 (l-n-olTjo-ev al™ ckci 
otKtas), did erect a permanent settlement for himself at Sukkoth. 
His immediate interest is not in Isaac and Jacob but in 
Abraham, and in the contrast of the tent-life with the stable, 
settled existence in a city — the idea which recurs in 12 22 13 14 . 
It is a Philonic thought in germ, for Philo (Leg. Alleg. 3 27 ) 
declares that the land promised by God to Abraham is a it6\ls 
aya8r] xal ttoAAt) ko.1 acpoSpa tuSat/Awv, typifying the higher con- 
templation of divine truth in which alone the soul is at home, or 
that the soul lives for a while in the body as in a foreign land 
(de Somniis, i 31 ), till God in pity conducts it safe to fiTiTpoiroXis or 
immortality. The historical Abraham never dreamed of a iroXis, 
but our author imaginatively allegorizes the promised land once 
more (cp. 4 3f ), this time as (12 22 ) a celestial ttoAis or Jerusalem, 
like Paul and the apocalyptists. According to later tradition 
in Judaism, the celestial Jerusalem was shown in a vision to 
Abraham at the scene of Gn 15 9 - 21 (Apoc. Bar. 4 4 ), or to Jacob at 
Bethel (Beresh. rabba on Gn 28 17 ). 'EleSe'xeTo yap — and this 
showed the steady patience( io 36 ) and inward expectation (n 1 ) of 
his faith — tt)i> tous 0ep.eXioos (tow's, because it was such foundations 
that the tents lacked) exovcrav tt6\i.v. No doubt there was some- 
thing promised by God which Abraham expected and did get, in 
this life ; the writer admits that (6 13 ' 15 ). But, in a deeper sense, 
Abraham had yearnings for a higher, spiritual bliss, for heaven 
as his true home. The fulfilment of the promise about his 
family was not everything; indeed, his real faith was in an 
unseen future order of being (n 1 ). However, the realization of 
the one promise about Isaac (6 13 ' 16 ) suggests a passing word 
upon the faith of Sara (vv. 11, 12 ). 

1 According to Jubilees ic- 16 '" Abraham lived to see Jacob's manhood. 


11 It was by faith that even (icai) Sara got strength to conceive, bearing a 
son when she was past the age for it — because she considered she could rely on 
Him who gave the promise. la Thus a single man, though (nal ravra) he was 
physically impotent, had issue in number ' ' like the stars in heaven, countless 
as the sand on the seashore." 

This is the first instance of a woman's faith recorded, and she 
is a married woman. Paul (Ro 4 19f -) ignores any faith on her 
part. Philo again praises Sarah, but not for her faith ; it is her 
loyalty and affection for her husband which he singles out for 
commendation, particularly her magnanimity in the incident of 
Gn 16 2 (de Abrahamo, 42-44). Our author declares that even 
in spite of her physical condition (icai au-rf) lappa), she believed 
God when he promised her a child. The allusion is to the tale 
of Gn i7 16 -2i 7 , which the readers are assumed to know, with its 
stress on the renewal of sexual functions in a woman of her age. 
This is the point of /cat avrrj, not " mere woman that she was " 
(Chrysostom, Oec, Bengel), nor "in spite of her incredulity" 
(Bleek), nor "Sara likewise," i.e. as well as Abraham (Delitzsch, 
Hofmann, von Soden, Vaughan), owing to her close connexion 
with Abraham ( Westcott, Seeberg), though the notion of " like- 
wise" is not excluded from the author's meaning, since the 
husband also was an old man. A gloss (crreipa, 77 crreipa, 77 
o-TCLpa oScra) was soon inserted by D* P, nearly all the versions, 
and Origen. This is superfluous, however, and probably arose 
from dittography (ZAPPAZTGIPA). The general idea is plain, 
though there is a difficulty in Suvajjuf cXapei' (i.e. from God) 
els KUTaPoXr)!' airepua-ros = els to kolt a fidWco- 6 ai o-iripp.a, i.e. for 
Abraham the male to do the work of generation upon her. This 
is how the text was understood in the versions, e.g. the Latin (" in 
conceptionem seminis "). Probably it was what the writer meant, 
though the expression is rather awkward, for KaTafioXr] <nrepp.aTo<; 
means the act of the male ; eh iiro&oxqv o-irepp.aro's would have 
been the correct words. This has been overcome (a) by omit- 
ting Kol <xutt] lappa as a gloss, or (b) by reading au-rfj lappa. 
(a) certainly clears up the verse, leaving Abraham as the subject 
of both verses (so Field in Notes on Trans/, of NT, p. 232, and 
Windisch) ; (b) is read by Michaelis, Storr, Rendall, Hort, and 
Riggenbach, the latter interpreting it not as " dativus commodi," 
but = " along with." If the ordinary text is retained, the idea 
suggested in k<u airij Sappa is made explicit in irapa KaipcV 
TjXiKi'as. What rendered such faith hard for her was her physical 
condition. Philo (de Abrah. 22) applies this to both parents 
(77817 yap vTrep-qXiKts yeyoi'OTes 81a. paKpbv yfjpas a-rriyvwaav 7rat86s 
o-7ropav), and a woman in the period of life described in Gn I8 11 - 12 
is called by Josephus yvvaiov tjjv v)\ikio.v T7877 irpofitfiX-qKOS (Ant. 
vii. 8. 4). 


Els rb T€Kvw<rai (D* P 69. 436. 462. 1245. 1288. 2005 syr hld ) after ?Xo|3ev 
is a harmless gloss. The addition of ^re/cev (k'KLP lat arm) after r/Xt/ciaj 
was made when the force of icai ( =even) before irapa Kaipbv was missed. 

riioToc i^Y'no'aTo tok cTra.YY€i\dp,efoi' (io 23 ) is an assertion which 
shows that the author ignores her sceptical laughter in Gn 18 12 ; 
he does not hesitate (cp. v. 27 ) to deal freely with the ancient 
story in order to make his point, and indeed ignores the equally 
sceptical attitude of Abraham himself (Gn 17 17 ). To be m<rros 
in this connexion is to be true to one's word, as Cicero observes 
in the de Officiis (i. 7 : " fundamentum autem justitiae fides, id 
est dictorum conventorumque constantia et Veritas "). The 
promise was fulfilled in this life, so that Sara's faith resembles 
that of Noah (v. 7 ). The fulfilment is described in v. 12 , where, 
after 816 icai &<}>' kvo% {i.e. Abraham), 1 iyevvr]Qy}<rav (p 13 KL* 
1739, etc.) is read by some authorities for iyevrjOrjo-av (A D K P 
etc.), though the latter suits the airo in d<j>' eeos rather better. 
In either case something like reKva must be understood. J A4>' 
ivos is resumed in icai touto, (a v. I. in 1 Co 6 8 for the less 
common koX tovto) yeyeKpoijxeVou (in the sense of Ro 4 19 ). 
Gen. r. on Gn 25 1 applies job 14 7 - 9 to Abraham, but the plain 
sense is given in Augustine's comment (Civit. Dei, xvi. 28) : " sicut 
aiunt, qui scripserunt interpretationes nominum Hebraeorum, 
quae his sacris literis continentur, Sara interpretatur princeps mea, 
Sarra autem uirtus. Unde scriptum est in epistula ad Hebraeos : 
Fide et ipsa Sarra uirtutem accepit ad emissionem seminis. 
Ambo enim seniores erant, sicut scriptura testatur; sed ilia 
etiam sterilis et cruore menstruo iam destituta, propter quod 
iam parere non posset, etiam si sterilis non fuisset. Porro si 
femina sit prouectioris aetatis, ut ei solita mulierum adhuc 
fiuant, de iuuene parere potest, de seniore non potest ; quamuis 
adhuc possit ille senior, sed de adulescentula gignere, sicut 
Abraham post mortem Sarrae de Cettura potuit [Gn 25 1 ], quia 
uiuidam eius inuenit aetatem. Hoc ergo est, quod mirum 
commendat apostolus, et ad hoc dicit Abrahae iam fuisse corpus 
emortuum, quoniam non ex omni femina, cui adhuc esset 
aliquod pariendi tempus extremum, generare ipse in ilia aetate 
adhuc posset." This elucidates He n 1L1Sa . In what follows, 
the author is quoting from the divine promise in Gn 22 17 , a 
passage much used in later Jewish literature, 2 though this is the 
only full allusion to it in the NT (cf. Ro 9 s7 ). 

Before passing to the third phase of Abraham's faith, the 
writer adds (vv. 18 " 16 ) a general reflection on the faith of the 
patriarchs, an application of vv. 9 - 10 . There were promises which 

1 Is 5 1 2 iiJ.p\t\j/are eh 'A(3paa/x rbv iraripa v/AUUt . . . on ets 9jv. 

2 The comparison of a vast number to stars and sands is common in Greek 
and Latin literature ; cp. e.g. Pindar's Olymp. 2 98 , and Catullus, 6i 202 '\ 


could not be fulfilled in the present life, and this aspect of faith 
is now presented. 

13 ( These all died in faith without obtaining the promises ; they only 
saw them far away and hailed them, owning they were "strangers and 
exiles" upon earth. 14 Now people who speak in this way plainly show they 
are in search of a fatherland. 15 Jf they thought of the land they have left 
behind, they would have time to go back, 16 but they really aspire to the better 
land in heaven. That is why God is not ashamed to be called their God ; he 
has prepared a City for them.) 

Outoi Traces (those first mentioned in ^ 12 , particularly the 
three patriarchs) died as well as lived koto irurrir, which is 
substituted here for ■nicmi either as a literary variety of ex- 
pression, or in order to suggest ttio-tis as the sphere and standard 
of their characters. The writer argues that the patriarchs 
already possessed a 7ricrrts in eternal life beyond the grave ; 
their very language proves that. Mr) KOfiurducfoi explains the 
7rtoTis in which they died ; this is the force of p.rj. All they had 
was a far-off vision of what had been promised them, but a 
vision which produced in them a glad belief — i&drres ita! dcnrao-d- 
fiekoi, the latter ptc. meaning that they hailed the prospect with 
delight, sure that it was no mirage. The verb here is less meta- 
phorical than, e.g., in Musonius (ed. Hense), vi. : -rqv Se ^wr]v <Ls 
twv ayaBiov jxiyicrrov acnratp/xiOa, or Philo (ay airrjcrov ovv dp€Tas koX 
ao-n-acrai tyvxjj rfj aeavrov, quis rer. div. /teres, 8). Two interesting 
classical parallels may be cited, from Euripides (Ion, 585-587 : 

oi Tavrbv eTSos cpacverai rwv Trpayp.a.T(i>v 
Trpocrwdev ovtwv eyyvOev 6' op cop. eVuiv. 
iyw 8« ttjv ucv <rvp.<popa.v do-7rd£op,ai) 

and Vergil (Aen. 3 s24 " Italiam laeto socii clamore salutant "). 
Chrysostom prettily but needlessly urges that the whole metaphor 
is nautical (twv irXtovTinv kou iroppayOev opwvruyv Tas 7roXets Tas 
Tro8ovp.eva<;, as irplv r} cureAfoiv eis auras ry irpoa-p^creL XafiovTe? 
auras oiK€iovvTai). 

KofjLio-d/j.ei'oi (p 13 n* P W 33, etc.) is more likely to be original than a con- 
formation to io 36 11 39 ; the sense is unaffected if we read the more common 
Xafidvres (K c DKLt6. 104. 1739, Orig.). The reading of A arm (irpocrde£d- 
fievoi) makes no sense. 

Kai ofioXoyrjorarres, for to reside abroad carried with it a 
certain stigma, according to ancient opinion (cp. e.g. Ep. 
Aristeae, 249, koXov iv I8ta kclI t,fjv Kai reXevrav. rj Se £evi'a -rots 
p.€V TrevrjCTL Kara(pp6vr)(TLV epyd£erai, tois Se 7rA.ovcriois dveiSos, lis 

Sid nanLav iKTren-TWKocTiv : Sir 2c) 22 " 28 etc.). The admission, on 
|eVoi Kai irapeTriSrjfioi eiaiv eirl y'HS, is a generalization from the 
Oriental deprecation of Jacob in Gn 47 s («i7T€v 'IaKw/3 ™ <£apaw, 

ai ^pepai Twv Itiuv ttJs £idt}s p.ov as TrapoiKw kt\.), and the similar 

confession of Abraham in Gn 23* to the sons of Heth, 7rdpoi*cos 


/cat Trapeiri8r]fxo<; iyw elp.i p.ed* v/xStv. The cVt yrjs is a homiletic 

touch, as in Ps 119 19 (7rd/jot/cos etat ev rfj yrj). In both cases this 
6/j.oXoyia TTJs iXm8o<; (io 23 ) is made before outsiders, and the 
words €7rt t^s y^s start the inference (vv. 14 " 16a ) that the true home 
of these confessors was in heaven. Such a mystical significance 
of £eVot ica! irapeirt8T](ioi, which had already been voiced in the 
psalter, is richly and romantically developed by Philo, but it never 
became prominent in primitive Christianity. Paul's nearest 
approach to it is worded differently (Phil 3 20 , where to iroXiTevfxa 
corresponds to -n-arpk here). In Eph 2 12-19 , indeed, Christians are 
no longer £e'voi /cat irapoiKoi, for these terms are applied literally 
to pagans out of connexion with the chosen People of God. The 
only parallel to the thought of Hebrews is in 1 P, where Christians 
are Trapeiri8rjp.oi (i 1 ) and irapoiKoi /cat Trapeir&rffAOi (2 11 ). The term 
£eVot is used here as a synonym for -n-dpoiKoi, which (cp. Eph 2 12 - 19 ) 
would be specially intelligible to Gentile Christians. Hapeiti- 
8r/p.o<; only occurs in the LXX in Gn 23*, Ps 39 13 ; in the 
Egyptian papyri irapem&Tjp.ovvTe'i (consistentes) denotes foreigners 
who settled and acquired a domicile in townships or cities like 
Alexandria (GCP. i. 40, 55 ; cp. A. Peyron's Papyri graeci R. 
Taur. Musei Aegyptii, 8 13 twv Trapeir i8rffxovvTutv /cat [/ca]roi/coiWwj/ 
e[v] [T]airrai[9] £cVa>v), and for ievoi = peregrini, Ep. Art's t. 109 f. 
The use of such metaphorical terms became fairly common in 
the moral vocabulary of the age, quite apart from the OT, e.g. 
Marcus Aurelius, ii. 17 (6 8e /3tos ir6Xefjio<; /cat £evov eVtS^pta). A 
similar symbolism recurs in the argument of Epictetus (ii. 23, 36 f.) 
against the prevalent idea that logic, style, and eloquence are the 
end of philosophy : olov el tis dirioiv cts tt)v TrarpiSa ttjv eavTov 
/cat 8io8ev(av Trav8oKeiov /caXov dpecravTos avTco tov TravSo/cetov kclto.- 
fievoi ev tw 7ravSo/ceta>. avOponre, eneXadov <rov T17S TrpoOecrtws' ov/c €ts 
tovto cSScves, dXXd Sta tovtov . . . to 8e irpoKeifxevov e/cctvo' cts ttjv 
7raTpt'Sa e-n-aveXOelv. In a more specifically religious sense, it is 
expressed in the saying of Anaxagoras quoted by Diogenes 
Laertius (ii. 3. 7, 7rpos tov et7rovTa, " ovSeV crot fx.eX.ei. T17S iraTpi8o<;," 
" ev<prfp.ei" ecprj, " e/xot yap /cat cr<p68pa yu.cA.ct t*}? 7raTptSos," 8ei£a<i 
tov ovpavov). According to Philo, the confession that they were 
strangers and pilgrims meant that the soul in this world longed 
to return to its pre-existent state in the eternal order, and could 
never feel at home among things material. So, e.g., de con/us. 
ling. 17, 8td tovto ot /caTct Mojvcnjv <ro<poi 7rdvres ctcrdyovrat " irapoi- 
KOVVT6S-" at yap tovtcdv if/v^al aTeXXovTai fxev diroixiav ov8eTrore ttjv 
i£ ovpavov, ei<j}9ao~L 8e tve/ca tov < /cat <piXo/xa8ov<; 
eh ttjv irepiyeiov cpvaiv airo8rfp.etv . . . eiravep^ovrai e/cctcre TrdXiv, 
oOev wpp.rjdrjo'av to -rrpwrov, iraTpi8a /xev tov ovpdviov )(£)pov ev to 
7roXtTevoi'Tat, £evrjv 8e tov irepiyeiov ev a> TrapwKrjaav vofxi^ovaai ktX. 
In Cherub. 33, 34, commenting on irapoiKoi in Lv 25 23 , he argues 


that this is the real position of all wise souls towards God, since 
each of us is a stranger and sojourner in the foreign city of the 
world where God has for a time placed us till we return to Him. 

The metaphor had been applied, in a derogatory sense, by Sallust to the 
lazy and sensual men who never know what real life means, but who pass 
through it heedlessly: "many human beings, given over to sensuality and 
sloth ('ventri atque sorano '), uneducated, and uncultured, have gone through 
life like travellers" ("vitam sicuti peregrinantes transiere," Catil. 2). 

Such a confession proves (v. 14 ) that the men in question are 
not satisfied with the present outward order of things ; ep^o^i- 
£ouctii' (Esth 2 22 kol avrr] ivtcpdvio-ev t<3 /3ao-iAa ra r>}s eTnf3ov\f}<; : 
Ac 23 15 , OGIS. (iii A.D.) 42 9 , Syll. 226 85 rqv tc Trapovo-iav e'^avi- 
aavroiv tov /SacrtAeajs), they thus avow or affirm, oti -rraTpi'Sa 
£m£r|Tou<m' (Valckenaer's conjecture, hi proven, is ingenious but 
needless, cp. 13 14 ). For irdVpis in a mystical sense, compare Philo, 
de Agric. 14, commenting on Gn 47*) : t<3 yap ovti 71-ao-a if/vxri 
ao(f>ov TrarpiSa p,ev ovpavov, £ivqv Be yrjv «Aa^€, koL vofxi^i tov 
fxev o-o<pias oikov iSiov, tov 8k o-wp.aTos oOvzlov, <S kcu Trap€iri$i)fi€Lv 
oteTat. Here it is "heaven, the heart's true home." The 
creditable feature in this kind of life was that these men had 
deliberately chosen it. 1 Had they liked, they might have taken 
another and a less exacting line (v. 15 ). El piv (as in 8 4 ) ep^r]- 
\ioveuov (referring to the continuous past) kta. The /j.vr)fjLovevovo-iv 
of N* D* was due to the influence of the preceding presents, 
just as i/jLvrjfjLovtvo-av (33. 104. 2 16 Cosm.) to the influence of 
l£ifi-qo-av, which in turn was smoothed out into the usual NT 
term i£rj\6oi> (K C DKL* 436. 919. 1288. 1739). Mvt?/xoVcu€iv 
here has the sense of "giving a thought to," as in Jos. Ant. vi. 
37, ovre Tpo<pf)s i/j.vyp.ovevcrev ov6' virvov, and below in v. 22 . Time 
(as Ac 24 25 ), as elsewhere in Hebrews, rather than opportunity 
(i Mac 1 5 s4 ^//.eis Se xaipov £X ol/T€S avTc^o'/Ae^a ttj<; K\r)povop.ia<; 
rj/j.H)V kol rwv TraTepwv rjfJLwv), is the idea of e.'i)(OV &v Kcupov, Kcup6s 
taking an infinitive deaKripiJ/cu (so Codex A in Jg 1 1 39 kcu uveKa- 
p.\\i(v 7rpos tov irarkpa. avrrjs, for the aTreo-Tpexf/ev of B), as in Eurip. 
Rhesus, IO (xaipos yap aKovo-ai). 

Philo remarks of Abraham : rls 8' ovk &v pLerarpaird/jLevos ira\iv8p6fn)<T€v 
oticade, fipax^cL fJ-tv (ppovriaas twv /xeWovauv iXiriduv, tt\v dt irapodcav airoplav 
o-irev5wt> iicQvyeiv {de Abrakamo, 18). 

"Sometimes he wished his aims had been 
To gather gain like other men ; 
Then thanked his God he'd traced his track 
Too far for wish to drag him back." 

(Thomas Hardy, The Two Men.) 

On the contrary (v. 16 ), so far from that, they held on, the writer 

1 Cp. Test. Job xxxiii. (o&rw Kayw ^7 y\a d ivr\v to. i/m, dvr oiiStvos irpbs 
iKelvyv tt)v irb\u> irepl ^s \e\d\t]Kiv poi 6 &yye\os). 


adds ; vuv 8e (logical, as in 8 6 , not temporal) Kpci'-nwos ope'yoi'Tai, 
tout e<niv cTToupafiou (so God is described in 2 Mac 3 s9 as 6 rrjv 
KaroiKiav Itrovpdviov «x wv )' ^ l ° °" K ciraiaxufeTcu (compare 2 11 ) 
auTous 6 0eos " Oeos " eiritcaXeiorOat (epexegetic infinitive) " auTwi'," 
referring to Ex 3 6 , 'Eyw ci/ai . . . 0eos 'Afipaap. kcu 0e6s 'Io-aax kol 
deos 'Ia.KU)f3, which the writer 1 interprets (cp. Mk i2 26,27 ) as an 
assurance of immortality. Their hope of a irarpk or heavenly 
home was no illusion ; it was because God had such a 7roAis 
(v. 10 ) all ready for them that he could call himself their God. 
He might have been ashamed to call himself such, had he not 
made this provision for their needs and prepared this reward for 
their faith (rjToi/xao-tv, cp. Mt 23 s4 ). 

The third phase of the faith of Abraham (vv. 17 " 19 ) is now 
chronicled, followed by three instances of faith at the end of 
life, in Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (vv. 20-22 ). 

17 It was by faith {irlarei), "when Abraham was put to the test, that he 
sacrificed Isaac" ; he was ready to sacrifice " his only son," although he had 
received the promises, 18 and had been told (wpbs 8v, as 5 B ) that (Srt recitative) 
" it is through Isaac (not Ishmael) that your offspring shall be reckoned" — 
19 for he considered God was able even to raise men from the dead. Hence 
(6dev, causal) he did get him back, by what was a parable of the resurrection. 
20 // was by faith that Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in connection with the 
future. 21 It was by faith that, when Jacob was dying (dvodvr]<rKuv), he 
blessed each of the sons of Joseph, " bending in prayer over the head of his 
staff." 22 It was by faith that Joseph at his end {re\evrwt> only here) thought 
about the exodus of the sons of Israel, and gave orders about his own bones. 

The supreme test of Abraham's ttio-tis is found in the story 
of Gn 22 1 " 18 , which Jewish tradition always reckoned as the last 
and sorest of his ten trials {Pirke Aboth 5 4 ). It is cited in 
4 Mac 16 18 " 20 as a classical example of virop.ovrj (6<£eiA.eT€ Trdvra 
ttovov inrofieveiv Sia tov 6eov, St' ov kol o Tvarrjp rjfj.(i)v 'A^paa/x 
€0-7rcu8ev tov eOvoiroLTOpa vlov (repay tacrat 'Io-aax ktA..). In V. 17 the 
perfect tense irpo(T€vr\vox^y may mean "the ideally accomplished 
sacrifice, as permanently recorded in scripture" (Moulton, so 
Dial. 2751); but it is more likely to be aoristic (cp. Simcox, 
Lang, of NT., pp. 104, 126). ncipa^opeyos echoes Gn 22 1 (6 
deos C7mpa£ev tov 'Afipadp.). Kal (epexegetic) toc (xokoyekTJ (a 
Lucan use of the term in the NT) 2 Trpoo-e'^epei/ (conative imper- 
fect of interrupted action, like ixaXow in Lk i 69 ) 6 tcis eTrayye- 
Xias dvaoe£dp.evos, i.e. the promises of a son, of a numerous line 
of descendants (v. 12 ), and of a blessing thus coming to all nations. 

1 Origen (Joh. ii. 17) : p.eyd\rj yap dwpea. rotj iraTpi&pxcus rb rbv Oebv dvrl 
6v6p.aros irpoad\pai tt)v iKelvwv dvonaalav rfj >0eds< I5la avrov irpocrrjyopia. 

2 The LXX of Gn 22 2 reads rbv dyairrirbv, but perhaps the writer of tlpbs 
'Eppalovs read a text like that underlying Aquila (rbv p-ovoyevij), Josephus 
(rbv p-ovoyevij, Ant. i. 3. 1), and Symmachus (rbv p.6vov). Movoyevris and 
dyairyrbs, as applied to a son, tended to shade into one another. Philo reads 
dyairijTbs Kal p.6vos (quod deus immut. 4, etc.). 

XI. 18, 19.] ABRAHAM AND ISAAC 177 

This is made explicit in v. 18 , with its quotation from Gn 21 12 . 
For dvaSc'xo/ACH in the sense of " secure," see the line from 
Sophocles' " Ichneutae," in Oxyrh. Papyri, vii. 25 (ov <J>cu/3os v/juv 

e?7re /^ajveSe'^aTo). 

In v. 19 Xoyio-dfici'os (as Ro 8 18 etc.) explains why he had the 
courage to sacrifice Isaac, although the action seemed certain to 
wreck the fulfilment of what God had promised him. He held 
on ica! ex eeicpdW eyeipeie (weakened into eyeipai by A P, etc.) 
Suvotos (Dan 3 17 os ecrri SuvaTos i$e\eo-6ai rjpd<; ktA., and Ro 4 21 ) 
sc. iuriv 6 6e6s. Abraham, says Philo (de Abrahamo, 22), iravTa 
$8ei 6i.<2 Sward cr^eSov e£ eri (nrapyavuv tovtl to Sdy/xa irpopaOovaa. 
Later (32) he speaks of this sacrifice as the most outstanding 
action in Abraham's life — dAi'yov yap Sew </>dvai 7rdcras do-ai 
#£0<£iAets v-n-epftdWei. It was " a complicated and brilliant act of 
faith " (A. B. Davidson), for God seemed to contradict God, 
and the command ran counter to the highest human affection 
(Wis IO 6 crocfiia. . . . eVi Tewov (nr\dy^yoi<; icrx^pov icpv\a£ev). As 
Chrysostom put it, this was the special trial, to. yap tov deov 
eSoxei Tots tov 6eov p.d^ea6a.L, /cat 7rtcn-is e/xd^€TO 7rtcrT€i, /cat 7rpoa- 
rayp.a eVayyeAi'a. Hence (oQev, in return for this superb faith) 
eKop-unrro, he did recover him (Ko/u£eo-0ai, as in Gn 38 20 etc., of 
getting back what belongs to you), 1 in a way that prefigured the 
resurrection (Kpeirrovos dVaordo-ews, v. 35 ). Such is the meaning 
of eV irapaj3o\fj (cp. 9 9 ). Isaac's restoration was to Abraham a 
sort 2 of resurrection (v. 35a " quaedam resurrectionis fuit species, 
quod subito liberatus fuit ex media morte," Calvin). 'Ev irapa- 
$o\fj has been taken sometimes in two other ways. (a) = 7rapa- 
ySoAcos, i.e. beyond all expectation, almost 7rapaSdfw?, 7rap' 
eA7rt6a(s), or in a desperate peril, as Polybius says of Hannibal 

(i. 23. 7) dv€A7rioT(os koX irapa/36\<DS aurds ev ttJ o-Ka<f)r] Sie'c/>uye). 

This is at any rate less far-fetched than — (b) "whence he had 
originally got him, figuratively-speaking," as if the allusion was 
to v€V€Kpu)p.€vov (in v. 12 ) ! Against (a) is the fact that TrapaftoXrj 
never occurs in this sense. 

Augustine's comment is {Civit. Dei, xvi. 32) : "non haesitauit, quod sibi 
reddi poterat immolatus, qui dari potuit non speratus. Sic intellectum est 
et in epistula ad Hebraeos, et sic expositum [He n 17-19 ] . . . cuius simili- 
tudinem, nisi illius unde dicit apostolus : Qui proprio filio non pepercit, sed 
pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum ?" He makes Isaac carrying the wood a type 
of Christ carrying his cross, and the ram caught in the thicket typical of 
Christ crowned with thorns. According to the later Jewish tradition {Pirqe 
R. Eliezer, 31), Isaac's soul, which had left his body as his father's sword 

1 Josephus {Ant. i. 13. 4) describes the father and son as nap i\Tri5as 
eavTovs KeKOfMia/xeuoi. Philo {de Josepho, 35, rb KO/MicracrQai tov &5e\<p6v) has 
the same usage. 

2 Aelian *( Far. Hist. iii. 33) speaks of Satyrus the flautist, rpowov nva 
ttiv t£x v7 ) v iK<f>a.v\i$uv wapafiok-Q ry wpbs <pCkoco<plav. 



was falling, returned at the words, "Lay not thy hand on the lad"; thus 
Abraham and Isaac " learned that God would raise the dead." 

The next three instances are of ttiotis as viroa-Tacris i\Tri(op.£vwv, 
the hope being one to be realized in the destiny of the race 
(vv. 20 - 22 ). 

The solitary instance of tuotis in Isaac (v. 20 ) is that men- 
tioned in Gn 27 28 - 29 - 39, 40 , a faith which (n 1 ) anticipated a future 
for his two sons. Eu\oyr|o-€i/, of one man blessing another, as in 
7 lf - In tea! irepl fieXXorrwe (sc. Trpay/xaTOiv), where fieWciv refers 
to a future in this world, the rat simply 1 emphasizes nepl /xe\- 
Xovrwv eu\6yr)(Tiiv, and the whole phrase goes with evXoyqaev, 
not with ttLo-tu. The very fact that he blessed his two sons 
proved that he believed the divine promises to them would be 
realized in the future. The next two instances of faith are taken 
from death-beds ; it is faith, not in personal immortality, but in 
the continuance of the chosen race. In v. 21 the writer quotes 
from Gn 47 31 kgu irpo(T€Kvvr)o-ev 'IcrparjX €7rl to aKpov rrj<; pdfSSov 
airov, where the LXX by mistake has read ntSftn (staff) instead 

of nts^n (bed), and the incident is loosely transferred to the later 

situation (^Gn 48 9f -), when Jacob blessed the two sons of Joseph. 
Supporting himself on 2 his staff, he bowed reverently before 
God, as he blessed the lads. (In the Ep. Barnabas 13 4 " 6 , the 
writer interprets Jacob's preference for the younger son as a 
proof that Christians, not Jews, were the real heirs of God's 
blessing !) In v. 22 the argument draws upon Gn 5o 24 - 26 (Ex 
i 3 19 j J os 2 4 32 )> where Joseph makes the Israelites swear to 
remove his remains from Egypt to the promised land, so con- 
fident was he that God's promise to the people would one day 
be fulfilled. TeXeuiw (Gn 50 26 Kal ireXevTrjcrev 'Iwo-rjcp) Trepl ttjs 
e|ooou (only here in this sense in NT) rQ>v ulwc 'laparjX]p.oVeuo-e 
(called to mind, as v. 15 ) Kal Trepl rfif ooreW (uncontracted form 
as in LXX and Mt 23 27 , Lk 24 s9 ; cp. Cronert, Mem. Graeca 
Hercul. 166 4 ) au-rou eVcTeiXa-ro. Joseph's faith also was shown in 
his conviction of the future promised by God to Israel, but it 
found a practical expression in the instructions about conveying 
his mummy out of Egypt (Sir 49 18 Kal to. oo-ra avrov iireo-Keirrjo-av). 
The ninth example of mons is Moses, of whom almost as 
much is made as of Abraham. Five instances of faith are 
mentioned in connexion with his career (vv. 23 " 29 ). 

28 It was by faith that Aloses was li hidden for three months" (rplix-qvov, 
sc. xpf> vov ) after birth by his parents, because "they saw" the child was 

1 To suggest that it means " even " is flat for a blessing, ex hypoihesi, 
referred to the future. Its omission (by kKLP, the eastern versions, etc.) 
is more easily explained than its insertion. 

2 I K I 47 TrpocreKvvqtrev 6 j8acri\ei)s 4iri tt]v Koirrjv, iirl has the same local 

XI. 23, 24.] THE FAITH OF MOSES 179 

"beautiful" (Ac 7 20 ), and had no fear of the royal decree. M // was by faith 
that Moses refused, "when he had grown up," to be called the son of Pharaoh's 
daughter ; w ill-treatment with God's people he preferred to the passing 
pleasures of sin, 2S considering obloquy with the Messiah to be richer wealth 
than all Egypt's treasures— for he had an eye to the Reward. 27 It was by 
faith that he left Egypt, not from any fear of the king's wrath ; like one 
xvho saw the King Invisible, he never flinched. M // was by faith that he 
celebrated " the passover" and performed the sprinkling by blood, so that "the 
destroying angel" (cf. I Co lo lu ) might not touch Israel' s firstborn. w It was 
by faith that they crossed the Red Sea (Ac 7 36 ) like dry land — and when the 
Egyptians attempted it, they were drowned. 

Moses (v. 23 ) owed the preservation of his life as an infant to 
the courageous mcrus of his parents (TrctTepwy = yoi/eis, parentes, 
like patres in Ovid's Metam. 4 61 , and Plato's Leges, vi. 772 E, 
ayaOwv irarlpoiv <f)vvri). The writer quotes from Ex 2 2 - 3 , adding 
that, as the result of their faith, they had no fear of the royal 
edict (8ia.Tay/xa. as in Jos. Ant. xvi. 16. 5 ; Wis 11 7 etc.). This is 
the main point of their 7tio-tis. On acntiov see Philo's vit. Mos. 
i. 3 : ■y€vv^6 , €ts ovv 6 7rats tvOvs oif/iv ive^atvev doreiOTe'/Dav t] kolt 
ISlwttjv, ws kou tojv tov Tvpdvvov K7]pvyp.a.T(nv, i(p ocrov 010V t« r\v, 
tous yovets dAoy^crat). The Hebrew text makes the mother act 
alone, but the LXX gives the credit to both parents ; and this 
tradition is followed by Philo and Josephus {Ant. ii. 9. 4), as by 
our author. 

The parents of Moses are the first anonymous people in the roll-call of 
faith's representatives. Calvin rather severely ranks their faith on a lower 
level, because the parents of Moses were moved by the external appearance 
of their child, and because they ought to have brought him up themselves 
("notandum est fidem quae hie laudatur ualde fuisse imbecillam. Nam 
quum posthabito mortis suae metu Mosen deberent educare, eum exponunt. 
Patet igitur illorum fidem breui non tantum uacillasse sed fuisse collapsam"). 
Still, he reflects that this is after all an encouragement, since it proves that 
even weak faith is not despised by God. Chrysostom's comment is kinder ; 
the writer, he thinks, means to afford additional encouragement to his 
readers by adducing not only heroes, but commonplace people as examples 
of faith (ao-r][j.wv, avcovtifiuv). 

Another (7 2 ) gloss has been inserted here, after v. 23 , by D* 1827 and 
nearly all the MSS of the Latin versions, viz. Trlarei /xiyas yei>6p.ei>os Mwvcrrjs 
aveTKev rbv AlyinrTiov KaravoQv rr\v raireivwcnv tCiv aoe\<pwv avrov, a homi- 
letical application of Ex 2 U - 12 (used in Ac 7 23f -)- 

The second item of faith (v. 24 ) is the first individual proof by 
Moses himself. Josephus (Ant. ii. 9. 7) makes Moses refuse the 
Pharaoh's crown when a baby. The Pharaoh's daughter placed 
the child in her father's arms ; he took it, pressed it to his 
bosom, and to please his daughter graciously put the crown upon 
its head. But the child threw it to the ground and stamped on 
it. Which seemed ominous to the king ! The writer of Hebrews 
avoids such fancies, and simply summarizes Ex 2 11£ , where 
Moses /xeyas yekojie^os (from Ex 2 11 ; i.e., as Calvin points out, 
when his refusal could not be set down to childish ignorance 


of the world, nor to youthful impetuousness) Tjpvrj'craTo (with 
infinitive as in Wis I2 27 16 16 17 10 ) Xeyeo-Ocu ulds 0uya.Tp6s 4>apau. 
His religious motive in declining the title and position of son to 
an Egyptian princess (Jub 47 s ) is now given (v. 25 ) ; u.aXXoe 
eXojxei/os (for the construction and idea, cp. OGIS. 669 15 p.d\Xov 
ttjv tS)v Trporipwv iirdp^v ah'uvtov crvvrjOeiav <pv\d(T(rwv t/<i> rrjv 
7r/30crKatpov Ttvos dSiKiav p.eip.7](rdp.evo<;) (TuyicaKOuxeicrGcH (a new 
compound, unknown to the LXX) tw Xaw tou 0eou r\ Trpoo-Kcupoi' (a 
non-LXX term 1 which first occurs in 4 Mac i5 2 - 8 - 23 , and passed 
into the early Christian vocabulary as an antithesis to aicivtos) 
c^eiy d(j.apTtas diroXauaiv. The ap.apTia is the sin which he 
would have committed in proving disloyal to the People of God ; 
that might have been pleasant for the time being, but moris 
looks to higher and lasting issues (io 34 n 1 ). It would have 
been "sin" for him to choose a high political career at court, 
the " sin " of apostasy ; he did what others in their own way had 
done afterwards (io 35 , cp. 13 3 ). 

For air<5\auo-is see Antipater of Tarsus (Stob. Florileg. lxvii. 25) : rbv 5' 
ijffeov <.fHov>, i^ovo~lav btbbvra irpbs &Ko\a(rlav Kal ttoikIXcov rjbovQv aTrbXavcriv 
ayevvQv Kal puKpoxapwv , Icrbdeov vofxl£ov<n, and 4 Mac 5 8 > where the tyrant 
taunts the conscientious Jews, Kal yap avb-qrov rovro rb ixt) airoXaveiv rwv x w P^ 
dveldovs rjbiwv. Philo [vit. A/os. i. 6 : yevbfievbs re Siacfrepbvriiis a<rK7]rr]s 
bXiyobeelas Kal rbv afipodLairov filov ws ovdels Zrepos x^ el "^ ' as — ^ V XV "Y^P 
iirbdei fjibv-r} tfv, ov aJ^fiari) praises the asceticism of Moses in the palace 
of the Pharaoh, but gives an interpretation of his reward which is lower 
than that of our author ; he declares (i. 27) that as Moses renounced the 
high position of authority which he might have enjoyed in Egypt (e7ra5r? yap 
ttjv AlyvvTov KariXnrev yyefiovlav, Ovyarpt-Sovs rod t6t€ ftaaiXevovros wv), 
because he disapproved of the local injustice, God rewarded him with 
authority over a greater nation. 

In v. 26 the reason for this renunciation of the world is 
explained. M€i£oKa TfXouToy TjyTjo-du.ei'os (cp. V. 11 and Aoyio-d/ACvos 
in V. 19 ) Tail' AlyuTTTOu drjo-aupuie rbv 6vei%icrp,bv tou Xpiorou (as 
involved in o-vyKaKovx^o-dat tw Aa<3 tov deov). This is one of 
the writer's dinting phrases. There is a special obloquy in being 
connected with Christ. It is one of the things which Christians 
have to face to-day (13 13 ), and, the writer argues, it has always 
been so ; Moses himself, the leader of God's people at the first, 
showed his 7tio-tis by deliberately meeting it. The obloquy was 
part of the human experience of Jesus himself (12 2 13 12 ), but the 
point here in rbv 6vei8i.o-u.6i> tou Xpiorou is that, by identifying 
himself with God's people in Egypt, Moses encountered the 
same oVeiSioyAos as their very messiah afterwards was to endure. 
He thus faced what the writer, from his own standpoint, does 
not hesitate to call tov oi/ct8to-/x,ov tou Xpurrov. Whether he had 
in mind anything further, e.g. the idea that 6 Xpio-ros here 

1 It recurs in an edict of Caracalla (215 A.D.), quoted by Mitteis-Wilcken, 
i. 2. 39. 

XI. 26, 27.] THE FAITH OF MOSES i8l 

means the pre-incarnate Logos, as though a mystical sense 
like that of i Co io 4 underlay the words, is uncertain and 
rather unlikely, though the idea that Christ was suffering in the 
person of the Israelites, or that they represented him, might be 
regarded as justified by the language, e.g., of Ps 89 51 (tov dvei- 
8t.crp.ov tuv SovAojv crov . . . ov biveibicrav to dvTaXXayp.a tov Xpicrrov 
crov). The experiences of ingratitude and insulting treatment 
which Moses suffered at the hands of Israel illustrate Chry- 
sostom's definition of t6v tov X.ptcrTov : to p.exP l TeXovs 
kcu eo"^aT7js dvairvorjs irdcr^iLV xaKus . . . tovto co-tiv 
tov Xpto-Tov, oVav Tts -rrap' wv evepyerel oveiSt^Tcu (citing Mt 27 40 ). 
The basis of this estimate of life is now given : airi^Xetrev yap eis 
ttji' pior0airo8oo-iai', as the writer desired his readers to do (io 35 
n 6 ). 'ATTofiXeireiv els is a common phrase for keeping one's eye 
upon, having regard to, e.g. Theophrastus, ii. 10, ko.1 els exeZvov 
dirofSXeircDv : Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 15. I, 6 pkv . . . els p.6vov to 
XvctitcXcs to eK Tuiv dp7rayu>v aTrofiXeTrtov, irap-qKOVcrev. Mr. Starkie, 

in his note on Arist. Acharn. 32, suggests that dirofSXeTreiv, which 
is common in the comic poets and is also a philosophical term 
(e.g. Plato's Phaedo, 115 C; Phaedrus, 234 D), "was used like 
• to prescind ' in English," i.e. to fix one's gaze on a single 
object by withdrawing it from everything else. 

The third act of faith in his life (v. 27 ) is his withdrawal from 
Egypt to Midian (Ex 2 14f - = Ac 7 29 ). In pr\ <f>o{3T]8els Tor Qupbv 
tou pao-iXecos the author ignores the statement of the OT that 
Moses did fly from Egypt, in terror of being punished by the 
king for having murdered the Egyptian (bpyrjv dp.eiXiKTov fiacnXecos 
dTroSiSpdo-KGJv, Philo, de vit. Mos. i. 9). Josephus in his own 
way also (Ant. ii. 10. 1) eliminates the motive of fear. Our 
author declares that if Moses did retreat from Egypt, it was 
from no fear of Pharaoh, but in the faith that God had a future 
and a mission for him still ; he had as little fear of Pharaoh as 
his parents had had, tov ydp dopo/roy (sc. fiacriXea) cos bp£>v eicapW- 
pi)<rer (cp. Sir 2 2 evOvvov rrjv napSiav crov kclI KapTeprjcrov). " The 
courage to abandon work on which one's heart is set, and accept 
inaction cheerfully as the will of God, is of the rarest and highest 
kind, and can be created and sustained only by the clearest 
spiritual vision " (Peake). The language and thought are illus- 
trated by Epict. ii. 16. 45-46 : €K ti?s 8iavoias eKJ3aXe . . . Xvtttjv, 
cpofiov, etri.6vp.Lav, cpOovov, eiri-^aipeKaKLav, cpiAapyvpiav, p.a.\a.Kiav, 
d^pacriav. TavTa 8' ovk ecrTiv dXXws eK^aXeZv, el p.r] irpos p.ovov tov 
6ebv airofiXeirovTa., eneLvta p.6vw TrpoanreirovOoTa, tois iiceivov irpoo~T- 
dyp.acri Ka6o)o-Ltop.evov. The phrase is bpwv means the inward 
vision where, as Marcus Aurelius observes (x. 26), bpwp.ev, ov\i 
tois 6(pdaXp.oZs, dXX' ovx tjttov evapy&s. In the de Mundo, 399^, 
God is described as dopon-os cov dAAoj ttXtjv Aoyioyi.a5. Philo had 


already singled out this trait in Moses, e.g. de mutat. nomin. 2 : 
Mww^s 6 1-77? dciSous <f}V(T€ws 6ca.Tr]<; kcu 6t07nr)<i — cts yap tov 
yvocpov <pao~lv avrov ol duot xprjo-fAol elaeXOtiv (Ex 20 21 ), T^v 
aoparov kou do~<j>p.aTov ovaiav aU'tTTOfievoi. In vit. Mos. i. 15 he 
declares that the Pharaoh had no notion of any invisible God 
(fjui]8£va to Trapdirav vorjrov 6eov e£a> twv oparwv vo/u'£wv), and later 
on, commenting on Ex 20 21 (i. 28), he adds that Moses entered 
the darkness, tovt£o-tiv cis rr)v deiS?} kou aoparov Kal do-oifiarov rwv 
ovtwv 7rapa$etyp,aTU<y)v ovo~iav, tol dOiara <pvcrti dvrjTrj Karavowv. 

On jat] <J>oj3r)0els rbv Gujw toG PaaiXe'ws, it may be noted that 
the Stoics took the prudential line of arguing that one ought not 
needlessly to provoke a tyrant : " sapiens nunquam potentium 
iras provocabit, immo declinabit, non aliter quam in navigando 
procellam " (Seneca, Ep. xiv. 7). Various attempts have been 
made to explain away the contradiction between this statement 
and that of Ex 2 14 . (a) Some think they are not irreconcilable ; 
" so far as his life was concerned, he feared, but in a higher 
region he had no fear " (A. B. Davidson), i.e. he was certain 
God would ultimately intervene to thwart Pharaoh, and so took 
precautions to save his own life in the interest of the cause. This 
is rather artificial, however, though maintained by some good 
critics like Liinemann. {b) Or, the Ovp.6% may be not anger at 
the murder of the Egyptian, but the resentment of Moses' action 
in refusing a court position and withdrawing from Egypt 
(Vaughan, Dods, Delitzsch, etc.). (c) A more favourite method 
is to deny that the writer is alluding to Ex 2 U - 15 at all, and to 
refer the passage to the real Exodus later (so Calvin, Bleek, 
Westcott, Seeberg, and many other edd.); but this is to antici- 
pate v. 28 , and the Israelites were ordered out of Egypt by 
Pharaoh, not exposed to any anger of his. 

The fourth act of faith (v. 28 ) is his obedience to the divine 
orders of Ex i2 12-48 (cp. Wis 18 5 " 9 ), which proved that he be- 
lieved, in spite of appearances, that God had protection and a 
future for the People. neTroiT)Kei/ is another aoristic perfect ; irpoo-- 
Xuctis is not a LXX term, and Oiyyavta (Gi'yh) only occurs in LXX 
in Ex 19 13 ( = Heb 12 20 ). As Qiyyavw may take a genitive (12 20 ) 
as well as an accusative, 6\o6pevu>v might go with irpcoTOTOKa (i.e. 
of the Egyptians) and Qiyr\ with au-rwi' (the Israelites). Note the 
alliteration in morei ttett. irdo-\a . . . Trpocr^uan' The i^a jx-^ 
clause explains ttji' TTpoo-yuo-iv tou ai'p-aTos. 

By one Old Latin, or at any rate a non-Vulgate, text of this passage, in Codex 
Harleianus (ed. E. S. Buchanan, Sacred Latin Texts, i., 1912), a gloss is 
inserted at this point : "fide praedaverunt Aegyptios exeuntes" (Ex i2 35-36 ), 
which was evidently known to Sedulius Scotus (Migne, ciii. 268 C), who 
quotes it as "fide praedaverunt Aegyptios, quia crediderunt se iterum in 
Aegyptum non reversuros." 

XL 29-31.] THE FAITH OF ISRAEL 1 83 

The fifth act of faith (v. 29 ) is the crossing of the Red Sea 
(Ex i4 16f -). Strictly speaking, this is an act of faith on the part 
of the Israelites ; the 8i60T)aay depends on, for its subject, the 
au-iw of v. 28 . But those who crossed were ol efcAtfdrres c£ 
AlyvTTTov Sia Mwijo-e'cos (3 16 ), and the action is the direct sequel 
to that of v. 28 , though Moses is now included in the People. 81a 
|rjpas y^s i s f rom Ex 14 29 ; Sia/Wvciv goes with the genitive as 
well as with the accusative. The Israelites took a risk, in 
obedience to God's order, and so proved their irums. But there 
are some things which are possible only to faith. *Hs (i.e. ipv6pd 
OdXacrcrrj) irEipaf Xa^orres ol AiyuTrrioi Kar€ir6Qr]<Tav (from Ex 1 5* 
Kareirod-qa-av iv ipvdpa QaXda-o-rj, B), i.e. the Egyptians tried it and 
were swallowed up in the sea. Here ireipav Xapfidveiv is a 
classical phrase for (a) making an attempt, almost in the sense of 
testing or risking. They "ventured on" (cp. Dt 28 56 rj rpvcpepd, 
•^s ov)(l Trtipav eXafiev 6 ttovs avTt}s /Saiveiv i-rrl ttj<; y^s), Or tried 
it (cp. Jos. Ant. 8. 6. 5, croc/>ias fiovXop.evr] Xafielv 7retpav, 
etc.). The other meaning is that (b) of getting experience (so 
in v. 36 ), which is often the sad result of (a) ; so, e.g., Demosth. 
in Aristocratem, 131, Aa/?wv «pyw ttJs ckciVou <£iAias rreipav. The 
writer ignores the legendary embroidery of Philo (vit. Mos. iii. 
34, o)s €7ri $rjpa<; aTpairov kcll At^wSovs eoa^ovs — iKpavpu>$r) yap fj 
if/ap.p.o<; kou v cr7ropas avrrj<; ovfria. <rvp.<pvaa rjvoiOyj). 

Two more instances of faith are specially cited, both in con- 
nexion with the fall of Jericho (vv. 80 - 31 ). During the interval 
between the Exodus and the entrance into Canaan the writer, we 
are not surprised to find (3 16f, )> notes not a single example of 
7rt<ms, but it is remarkable that neither here nor below (v. 32f -) is 
there any allusion to Joshua. 

30 It was by faith that the wails of Jericho collapsed, after being surrounded 
for only seven days. 81 It was by faith that Rahab the harlot did not perish 
along with those who were disobedient, as she had welcomed the scouts 

The faith that had enabled Israel to cross the Red Sea in 
safety enabled them years later to bring the walls of a city crash- 
ing to the ground (v. 30 ). There was no siege of Jericho ; Israel 
simply marched round it for a week, and that act of faith in 
God's promise, against all probabilities, brought about the marvel. 
So the writer summarizes Jos 6 1-20 . Judas Maccabaeus and his 
men also appealed, in besieging a town, to t6v p.kya.v tov Ko'07/.ov 
8vvdaTr)v, tov drep Kptwv kcu prj^ai'wv dpyai'iK&v Karate prjp.viaavTa 
T7)v 'Iepi^w Kara tov<s 'I?;crov xpoVovs (2 Mac 1 2 15 ), and one Egyptian 
fanatic (for whom Paul was once mistaken, Acts 21 38 ) promised 
his adherents, in rebelling against the Romans, that the walls of 
Jerusalem would collapse at his word of command (Josephus, 
Ant. xx. 8. 6). 


The faith of a community is now followed by the faith of an 
individual. The last name on the special list is that of a 
foreigner, an unmarried woman, and a woman of loose morals 
(v. 31 ), in striking contrast to Sara and the mother of Moses. 
The story is told in Jos 2 1 ' 21 6 25 . For f\ iropvy] (" Ratio haec cur R. 
solita sit peregrinos excipere," Bengel) see below on 13 2 . A 
tendency to whitewash her character appears in the addition of 
iTTtXeyofxivr} (k syr hkl Ephr.), which is also inserted by some 
codices in the text of Clem. Rom. 12 1 . Her practical faith 
(Ja 2 25 ; Clem. Rom. i 12 Sia ttlcttlv kcu <£iXo£€viav icrwdr]), shown 
by her friendly (fiei-' eip^vTjs) welcome to the spies, which sprang 
from her conviction that the God of Israel was to be feared, saved 
(crumircoXeTo, cp. Sir 8 15 ) her from the fate of her fellow-citizens 
(toIs direiG^o-acrii') who declined to submit to the claims of Israel's 
God. They are described by the same word as are the recalci- 
trant Israelites themselves (3 18 ). Even Jewish priests were 
proud to trace their descent from Rahab ; her reputation 
stood high in later tradition, owing to the life which followed 
this initial act of faith (cp. Mt i 5 ). 

For lack of space and time the writer now passes to a mere 
summary of subsequent examples of faith (vv. 32f -). Roughly 
speaking, we may say that vv. 33 - 34 describe what the folk of old 
did by faith, vv. 35f - what they did for faith. 

32 And what more shall I say ? Time would fail me to tell of Gideon, of 
Barak and Samson and Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets — 
33 men who by faith (81a irlcrTews) conquered kingdoms, administered justice, 
obtained promises, shut the mouth of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, 
escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness won to strength, proved valiant 
in warfare, and routed hosts of foreigners. 

Kal ti en (om. D*) Xeyw (deliberative conjunctive) does not 
necessarily imply that TIpos 'E/fycu'ovs was originally a sermon or 
address ; it was a literary as well as an oratorical phrase. Thus 
Josephus uses a similar phrase in Ant. xx. n. 1 («ai ti Bet 7rAeia> 
Acyeiv;). Faith did not die out, at the entry into Palestine. On 
the contrary, the proofs of faith are so rich in the later story of 
the People that the writer has no time for anything except a 
glowing abstract. 'EmXeiiJ/ei yap P< € SiTjyoufieyoi' 6 xpo^os is one 
form of a common rhetorical phrase, though fj -fj/xepa is generally 
used instead of 6 xp^os- Three instances may be cited : Dion. 
Hal. De Compositione Verb. 4 (after running over the names of a 
number of authors) koX aAAovs //.upious, wv airavTuv to. ovo/xara el 
fiovXoifxiqv Xe'yetv, e^iAci'i^ei /A€ 6 rr/<; rj/xepa<; xpovos : Demosth. de 
Corona, 324, hvikzi\ty(.i /xe Aeyov0' rj rj/xepa to. tG>v TTpoSoruyv ovop-ara, 

and (out of several instances) Philo, de Sacrif. Abelis et Cairn', 5, 
€7TiXeti/'ei /u.c T] f)p.epa XiyovTo. ra twv kot etSos aperwv ovoixaTa, 

XI. 32, 33.] HEROES OF FAITH 1 85 

Air\yo6}i.evov . . . ircpi, as, e.g., in Plato's Euth. 6 C, 7roAAa 
7T€pi Twv dtioiv hirjyqaofxat, and Philo's de Abrah. 44, wv oAtyw 
irporepov evia &ie$r)\9ov ( = " gone over "). For p.e yap (X A D* 
33. 547), yap fxe is rightly read by p 13 D c K L P W Clem. Chrjs. 
etc. (cp. Blass, § 475. 2), though yap is omitted altogether by 
ty 216*. Six names are specially mentioned, to begin with. 
Gideon's crushing victory over the Ammonites echoes down later 
history (e.g. Is g 3 io 26 , Ps 83 11 ). The singling out of Barak is 
in line with the later Jewish tradition, which declined to think of 
him as a mere ally of Deborah ; he was the real hero of the 
exploit. For example, some rabbis (cp. Targ. on Jg 5 23 , Yalkut 
on Jg 42) gave him the high name of Michael, and praised this 
brave leader for his modesty in allowing Deborah to occupy so 
prominent a place. Later tradition also magnified Samson's 
piety and divine characteristics (e.g. Sotah gb, 10a). Of all the 
four "judges" selected, Jephthah has the poorest reputation in 
Jewish tradition ; he is censured for rashness, and his rank is 
comparatively insignificant. Augustine, however (Quaes t. vu. 
xlix.), points out that the "spirit" came both on Jephthah (Jg 
1 1 29 - 30 ) and on Gideon (8 27 ). Why these four names are put in 
this unchronological order (instead of Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, 
and Samson), it is impossible to guess; in 1 S 12 11 it is Gideon, 
Barak, Jephthah, and Samson, followed by Samuel. David here 
(AauetS tc) belongs to the foregoing group, the only one of 
Israel's kings mentioned in the list. In Jewish tradition (e.g. 
Josephus, Ant. vi. 2, 2-3) Samuel's career was interpreted with 
quite martial fervour ; he was credited with several victories over 
the Philistines. Hence he forms a transition between the 
previous heroes and the prophets, of which he was commonly 
regarded as the great leader (cp. Ac 3 24 ). "a.\\uh> ( + tuv?) is 
superfluously inserted before Trpo^Twc by syr hkl P esh arm eth sah 
boh 69. 1288 Theod. Dam. In ot 81& mo-Tews (v. 33 ) the 61 covers 
vv. 33 - 34 , but Sia TTto-Tccos includes vv. 35 " 38 as well, and is reiterated 
in v. 39 . The following nine terse clauses, devoid of a single koi, 
begin by noting military and civil achievements. In KaTqywi- 
crarro fJacriXeias, KaTaya)vt£o/xai (not a LXX term) is the verb 
applied by Josephus to David's conquests (in Ant. vii. 2. 2, airw 
craicrat Karayajvicra^teva) IlaXaicrrtvous SeSwKtv 6 0cos) ; its later 
metaphorical use may be illustrated from Mart. Pol. 19 2 (Sia 
tt}s VTTOfiovrjs KaTayaivtcra/xevos tov aSiKov ap^ovra). 'HpyaCTarro 
8iKaioaui/T]K in the sense of 2 S 8 15 (/cat ifiaaiXevaev AauetS eVt 
Icrpa^X' /<at rjv ttolwv Kpip.a xat Sixaiocrvvrjv iirl iravra Toy Xaov 
avTov) etc., the writer applying to this specific activity, for which 
7rio-Tis was essential, a phrase elsewhere (cp. Ac io 35 ) used for a 
general moral life. Such was their faith, too, that they had pro- 
mises of God's help realized in their experience ; this (cp. 6 15 ) is 


the force of itriru\ov eirayyeXiwi'. Furthermore, l^pa^a^ orojiaTa 
XeoiTw, as in the case of Daniel (Dn 6 18 - 23 6 6e6s fiov ive(f>pa£ev 
to. (TTOfULTa twv AcoVtoov, Theod.), eafieaav SuVafAif irupo$, as in the 
case of Daniel's three friends (Dn 3 19 " 28 , 1 Mac 2 59 , 3 Mac 6 6 ). 
In c<j>uyoK orojiaTo. p,ax<upT]9, the unusual plural of a-ro/xa (cp. 
Lk 2 1 24 ireo-ovvTai crTojuan /xa^aiprj 1 ;) may be due to the preceding 
a-To/xara rhetorically ; it means repeated cases of escape from 
imminent peril of murder rather than double-edged swords (4 12 ), 
escapes, e.g., like those of Elijah (1 K i9 lf -) and Elisha (2 K 
6 uf - 31f -). In i^uva^Q-qaav (p 13 N* A D* 1831 ; the v.l. eveSwa- 
/AuOrjo-av was probably due to the influence of Ro 4 20 ) dird 
do-Geyeias, the reference is quite general ; Hezekiah's recovery 
from illness is too narrow an instance. 1 The last three clauses 
are best illustrated by the story cf the Maccabean struggle, 
where dAAdYpioi is the term used for the persecutors (1 Mac 2 1 
etc.), and Trapep.fio\ri for their hosts (1 Mac 3 15 etc.). In irapeji- 
(3oXds eKXii'ai' dWorpiuy, Trapep.fSoXrj, a word which Phrynichus 
calls Sctvws MaKeSoviKov, means a host in array (so often in 1 Mac 
and Polybius) ; k\ivo> (cp. Jos. Ant. xiv. 15. 4, KXiverai to . . . 
Ke'pas t^s <£dAayyos) is never used in this sense in the LXX. 

What the heroes and heroines of mcms had to endure is now 
summarized (vv. 35 " 38 ) : the passive rather than the active aspect 
of faith is emphasized. 

88 Some were given back to their womankind, raised from the very dead ; 
others were broken on the wheel, refusing to accept release, that they might 
obtain a better resurrection ; 36 others, again, had to experience scoffs and 
scourging, aye, chains and imprisonment — S7 they were stoned . . . sawn in 
two, and cut to pieces ; they had to roam about in sheepskins and goatskins, 
forlorn, oppressed, ill-treated w (men of whom the world was not worthy), 
wanderers in the desert and among hills, in caves and gullies. 

"EXapof yuyalites 2 kt\. ( 35 ) recalls such stories as 1 K i7 17f - 
and 2 K 4 s " 37 (xai rj yvvrj . . . ZXafiev tov vlov avrrjs /cat i£f}\6ev) ; 
it was a real dvdorao-is, though not the real one, for some 
other male beings became literally and finally peicpot, relying by 
faith on a Kpei'o-ow dedoTao-is. "A\\oi 8e' (like Sokrates in Athens : 
cp. Epict. iv. I. 164-165, 2wKparr;s 8' aiax/nos ov cr<££eT<u . . . 
tovtov ovk eon o"aicrai at0"xpai?, dAA airoOvqcrKOiv o-w^eTat) could 
only have saved their lives by dishonourably giving up their 

1 A more apt example is the nerving of Judith for her act of religious 
patriotism (cp. Rendel Harris, Sidelights on NT Research, 170 f. ), though 
there is a verbal parallel in the case of Samson (Jg 16 18 air6<TTTi<rei air' i/iov ij 
loXis fjiov ko.1 acdevqcru)). 

2 The odd v.l. ywaiicas (p 13 n* A D* 33. 1912) may be another case (cp. 
Thackeray, 149, for LXX parallels) of -as for -es as a nominative form ; as an 
accusative, it could only have the senseless meaning of " marrying " 
(Xanfiaveiv 7wcuk<xs). Strong, early groups of textual authorities now and 
then preserve errors. 

XI. 35, 36.] MARTYRS OF FAITH 1 87 

convictions, and therefore chose to suffer. This is a plain refer- 
ence to the Maccabean martyrs. 'ErupTvavioQiqaav (Blass prefers 
the more classical form in D* aTrervfATraviaOrjo-av), a punishment 
probably corresponding to the mediaeval penalty of being broken 
on the wheel. " This dreadful punishment consists," says Scott 
in a note to the thirtieth chapter of The Betrothed, " in the 
executioner, with a bar of iron, breaking the shoulder-bones, 
arms, thigh-bones and legs of the criminal, taking his alternate 
sides. The punishment is concluded by a blow across the 
breast, called the coup de grdce, because it removes the sufferer 
from his agony." The victim was first stretched on a frame or 
block, the Tvp-iravov 1 (so schol. on Aristoph. Plut. 476, rvp-Trava 
£vAa i<f> ols iTV/ATravi£ov' i)(pC>vTO yap Tavry Tjj Ttpwpia), and 

beaten to death, for which the verb was diroTvp.Travit,<io-bai (e.g. 
Josephus, c. Apione?n, i. 148, quoting Berossus, Aa/Jopoo-odp^oSos 
. . . virb twv c/u'Atov aTreTvp-iravioSr) : Arist. Rhet. ii. 5. 14, wcnrep 01 

a.TTOTvp.iravi£,6p.(.voi, etc.). So Eleazar was put to death, because 
he refused to save his life by eating swine's flesh (2 Mac 6 19 
6 Se tov p.€T eu/cAetas p.dAAov t\ tov juera pVous fiiov 
dvaSe£dp.evos avOaiptTws cttI to Tvp.iravov irpocrrjyev). It is this 
punishment of the Maccabean martyrs which the writer has in 
mind, as Theodoret already saw. The sufferers were " distracti 
quemadmodum corium in tympano distenditur " (Calvin) ; but 
the essence of the punishment was beating to death, as both 
Hesychius (7rA^o-o-erat, efcSepeTai, laxypCjs Tvimrai) and Suidas 
(£v'A.o) irX-qaaerai, e/<SepeTai, /cat Kpeparai) recognize in their defini- 
tion of TD/i.7ravi^6Tai. The hope of the resurrection, which 
sustained such martyrs ou irpocrSe^dpecoi (cp. io 34 ) tt\v dTroXuTpcocrti', 
is illustrated by the tales of Maccabean martyrs, e.g. of Eleazar 
the scribe (2 Mac 6 21f -), urged to eat some pork Iva tovto 7rpd£as 
aTToXvO-r] tov 9ava.Tov, and declining in a fine stubbornness ; but 
specially of the heroic mother and her seven sons {ibid. 7 lf -), 
who perished confessing atperov p.eTaAAdcro-ovTas diro dvOpwirwv 
to.5 vtto tov Otov 7rpoo~8oKav eA.7rtoa? 7rdAtv dvao-Tr]0~€o~6ai vir airov 
... 01 yap vvv ^p-eVcpot dSekcpol fipaxyv €7rev€yKavT€s ttovov 
devdov £wi}s vtto hiaOrjKrjv Oeov Tr€TTTWKao~iv. 

In v. 36 eTcpoi 8e (after 01 p,ev . . . dAA.01 Si in Matt 16 14 ) 
ireipai' eXapoy (see on V. 29 ) i^Traiy^C>v (cp. Sir 2 7 28 ep.7ratyp.0s /cat 
dv€t8to-p.o's) Kal pao-Tiyw — a hendiadys ; the writer has in mind 
shameful tortures like those inflicted on the seven Maccabean 
brothers, as described in 2 Mac 7 1 (£iv Kal vevpaU at/a£o- 

1 Another word for the frame was rpoxfc, as in 4 Mac 9 20 , where the 
eldest of the seven famous Jewish brothers is beaten to death. Hence 
the verb used by Philo (in Flaccum, 10) to describe the punishment inflicted 
on the Alexandrian Jews ('IouScuoi fAa<rTiyov/j.ei>oi, Kpe/xafievot, rpoxi^/xevoi, 


/le'vous . . . 7 rjyov iirl tov ifiTraiy/xov), although in this case the 
beating is not at once fatal, as the next words prove (en S« 
Seo-fiwv Kal cfivXaKrj';). The passage would be more clear and 
consecutive, however, if eVepoi Se preceded •n-epir}\(W (in v. 37 ), 
introducing the case of those who had not to suffer the martyrs' 
death. This would leave ep.TraiYpwi' kt\. as a reiteration or 
expansion of iTvixiraviaOrjo-av. Before Secrjidiy Kal 4>u\aKi]s, Iti 8e 
probably (cp. Lk 14 26 ) heightens the tone — not merely passing 
blows, but long durance vile : though the sense might be simply, 
" and further." In v. 87 i\iQa<jQr\crav (as in the case of Zechariah, 
2 Ch 24 20 " 22 , Mt 23 s5 ) was the traditional punishment which 
ended Jeremiah's life in Egypt (Tertull. Scorp. 8) ; possibly the 
writer also had in mind the fate of Stephen (Acts 7 58 ). 
> E-n , pi<x0T]o-cu' (Am I 8 tirpitpv irpiocriv <TiZrjpdt<i ktX.) alludes to the 
tradition of Isaiah having being sawn in two with a wooden saw 
during the reign of Manasseh, a tradition echoed in the contem- 
porary Ascensio Isaiae 5 1 " 14 (Justin's Dial. cxx. ; Tertull. de 
Patientia, xiv. etc.) ; cp. R. H. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah 
(1900), pp. xlv-xlix. 

After {Ki66.<rdi)<xav there is a primitive corruption in the text. Four 
readings are to be noted. 

iireipda6r]aav, iirplvOrjcrav : K L P 33. 326 syr hkl . 

£irpLadr)(Ta.v, iirupdud^ffav : p 1! A D ^ 6. 104. 1611. 1739 lat boh arm. 

iweipaadfiaav : fuld, Clem. Thdt. 

iirpl(rdr)<ja.v : 2. 327 syr v e Eus. etc. 

Origen apparently did not read iireipdo-drja-av, if we were to judge from 
Horn. Jerem. xv. 2 (&X\oi> i\L0o^6\rjcrav, SXKov Zirpiixav, dXXoe dir^KTeivav 
fieral-b tov vaov Kal tov dvcriao-Tripiov), but shortly before (xiv. 12) he quotes 
the passage verbally as follows : iXidda-drjcrav, eTrpladyjaav, iireipdadiicFav, iv 
<f>6vip naxa-lpa-s airtdavov, though iireipao-dTjaav is omitted here by H. In 
c. Cels. vii. 7 it is doubtful whether iireipad-qo-av or iireipda 8 'rjaav was the 
original reading. Eusebius omits the word in Prcep. Evang. xii. 10 (583a?), 
reading iXidaad-qo-av, itrpladrjaav, iv <p6i>(p kt\., and sah reads "they were 
sawn, they were stoned, they died under the sword." It is evident that 
iveipdadrio-av (written in some MSS as iirip.) as " were tempted " is impossible 
here ; the word either was due to dittography with iirplo-drjo-av or represents a 
corruption of some term for torture. Various suggestions have been made, 
e.g. iir-qpuidrjcrav (mutilated) by Tanaquil Faber, i-jrpdd-qaav (sold for slaves) 
by D. Heinsius, £<rTreipdo-dr)<rav (strangled) by J. Alberti, or iiripdrjaav 
(impaled) by Knatchbull. But some word like iirvpw(do-)dijcrav (Beza, F. 
Junius, etc.) or iirprjcrdriaav (Gataker) ' is more likely, since one of the seven 
Maccabean brothers was fried to death (2 Mac 7 4 ), and burning was a 
punishment otherwise for the Maccabeans (2 Mac 6 11 ). It is at any rate 
probable that the writer put three aorists ending in -adrjaav together. 

Death iv <j>6V<i> paxaipr]9 (a LXX phrase) was not an un- 
common fate for unpopular prophets (1 K 19 10 , Jer 26 23 ); but 
the writer now passes, in Trepir]X0of ktX. ( 37b - 38 ), to the sufferings 

1 Or ivewpy\ad7]crav, which is used by Philo in describing the woes of the 
Alexandrian Jews (in Flaccum, 20, fuJeres ol /xh iveirp-rjo-drjaav). 

XI. 36-38.] THE PERSECUTED 1 89 

of the living, harried and hunted over the country. Not all the 
loyal were killed, yet the survivors had a miserable life of it, like 
Mattathias and his sons (1 Mac 2 28 ecpvyov . . . cis raoprj), or 
Judas Maccabaeus and his men, who had to take to the hills 
(2 Mac 5 27 iv tois opeaiv 6r]pLd>v rpoirov &u£r) crvv T019 avrov, 
koI T77V xopTtoSr) rpofpyv (TLTovp.evot SteTcAow), or others during the 
persecution (2 Mac 6 11 erepoi Be irXr/aLOV o~wBpap.6vTe<; eis tol 
o-ir-qXaua). When the storm blew over, the Maccabeans recol- 
lected d)S tt/v tcov (TK-qvuiv lopTTjv iv Tots opeaiv kcu iv tois cnrrjXaiois 

6r)ptu>v rpoTrov rjaav vep.6p.evoi (2 Mac io 6 ). They roamed, the 
writer adds, dressed iv pjXwtcus (the rough garb of prophets, like 
Elijah, I K I9 13,19 ), ee alyeiois Sepfjiacne (still rougher pelts). 
According to the Ascensio Isaiae (2 7f -) the pious Jews who 
adhered to Isaiah when he withdrew from Manasseh's idolatry 
in Jerusalem and sought the hills, were " all clothed in garments 
of hair, and were all prophets." Clement (17 1 ) extends the refer- 
ence too widely : oiTivts iv Beppaaiv cuyct'ois kcu /xt^Awtcus trepi- 
iraTrjo-av KrjpvacrovTe<s tyjv eXevaiv tov Xpicrrov* \eyop.ev 8e 'HXciav 
/cai 'EXio-aie, en 8e ko.1 'le^eKirjX, toi>s Trpo<prjTa.<;- 7rpos tovtois kcu 
tous p.ep.apTVpr]p.evovs. 

A vivid modern description of people clad in goatskins occurs in Balzac's 
Les Chouans (ch. i.) : " Ayant pour tout vetement une grande peau de chevre 
qui les couvrait depuis le coljusqu'aux genoux. . . . Les meches plates de 
leurs longs cheveux s'unissaient si habituellement aux poils de la peau de 
chevre et cachaient si completement leurs visages baisses vers la terre, qu'on 
pouvait facilement prendre cette peau pour la leur, et confondre, a la premiere 
vue, les malheureux avec ces animaux dont les depouilles leur servaient de 
vetement. Mais a travers les cheveux Ton voyait bientot briller les yeux 
comme des gouttes de rosee dans une epaisse verdure ; et leurs regards, tout 
en annon5ant l'intelligence humaine, causaient certainement plus de terreur 
que de plaisir." 

Their general plight is described in three participles, uorepou- 
fieyoi, 0Xi.p6fj.6eoi (2 Co 4 8 ), KaKouxoufici'oi (cp. 13 3 , and Plut. 

Consol. ad Apoll. 26, ware Trplv airwo-ao-dai, ra TrevBt] K(XKOV)(pvp.evov<i 
reXevrrjo-ai tov (3lov). Kaxovxeiv only occurs twice in the LXX 
(1 K 2 26 11 39 A), but is common in the papyri (e.g. Tebt. Pap. 
104 22 , B.C. 92). This ill-treatment at the hands of men, as if 
they were not considered fit to live (cp. Ac 2 2 22 ), elicits a 
splendid aside — 5>v ouk r\v a|iog 6 Koo-p,os. Compare Mechilta, 
5a (on Ex 12 6 ): "Israel possessed four commandments, of 
which the whole world was not worthy," and the story of the 
bath qol in Sanhedr. 11. 1, which said, "One is here present 
who is worthy to have the Shekinah dwelling in him, but the 
world is not worthy of such." Ko'07/.os as in v. 7 ; Philo's list 
of the various meanings of Koo-p.o% (in de aetern. mundi, 2) does 
not include this semi-religious sense. Of the righteous, Wis 3 s 
remarks : 6 f?eos iireipao-ev avTovs kcu evpev avrovs a$iovs eavrov. 


"There is a class of whom the world is always worthy and more than 
worthy : it is worthy of those who watch for, reproduce, exaggerate its foibles, 
who make themselves the very embodiment of its ruling passions, who shriek 
its catchwords, encourage its illusions, and flatter its fanaticisms. But it is a 
poor rdle to play, and it never has been played by the men whose names 
stand for epochs in the march of history" (H. L. Stewart, Questions of the 
Day in Philosophy and Psychology, 1912, p. 133). 

In 38b it was the not infrequent (cf. Mk i 45 ) confusion of 
GN and 6TTI in ancient texts which probably accounted for iv 
being replaced by «rt (e<p') in p 13 NAP 33. 88, etc. ; hri does 
not suit o"rrr|\aiois • • • oirais, and the writer would have avoided 
the hiatus in iirl ipr]p.[ai<i. Still, ttX(xvw|i.€|/oi suits only iprjptaL<; kcu 
opecrij/, and eVt may have been the original word, used loosely 
like 7rAavw/xevoi with 0-^77X01019 ktX. In Ps.-Sol 17 19 the pious 
€7rA.ava)VT0 iv ip-q/JiOL<;, (T0i8rji'aL i/a^as avrwv airo kolkov. For oVais, 
cp. Ob 3 iv rais 07rats tw 7rerpwv. 'S.TrrjXa'iov, like the Latin 
spelunca or specus, eventually became equivalent to a " temple," 
perhaps on account of the prominence of caves or grottoes in the 
worship of some cults. 

Now for an estimate of this 77-to-Tis and its heroic representa- 
tives (vv. 39 - 40 ) ! The epilogue seems to justify God by arguing 
that the apparent denial of any adequate reward to them is part 
of a larger divine purpose, which could only satisfy them after 

39 They all won their record (p.a.pTvp7)de'vTes = iiiapTvpii9T]<ra.v in v. 2 ) for 
faith, but the Promise they did not obtain. 40 God had something better in 
store for us (r\p.&v emphatic) ; he would not have them perfected apart 
from us. 

Some of these heroes and heroines of faith had had God's 
special promises fulfilled even in this life (e.g. vv. 11 - 33 ), but the 
Promise, in the sense of the messianic bliss with its eternal life 
(io 36 - 37 , cf. 6 17f -), they could not win. Why? Not owing to 
any defect in their faith, nor to any fault in God, but on account 
of his far-reaching purpose in history ; outoi irdV-res (again as in 
v. 13 , but this time summing up the whole list, vv. 4 ' 38 ) ook 
eKojuo-aiTo (in the sense of v. 13 p.rj Kop.iardp.fvoL ; not a voluntary 
renunciation, as Wetstein proposes to interpret it — "non 
acceperunt felicitatem promissam huius vitae, imo deliberato 
consilio huic beneficio renunciaverunt et maluerunt affligi 
morique propter deum") tV eTrayyeXtai' (in v. 13 the Promise was 
loosely called at irrayyeXiai, and the plural Tas €7rayyeXias is 
therefore read here by A W 436. 161 1). The reason for this is 
now given (v. 40 ) in a genitive absolute clause, tou Oeou ircpl T|fAwi> 
KpeiTTo^ ti irpopXevJ/afieVou (the middle for the active). npo/JXeVetv 
only occurs once in the LXX (Ps 37 13 6 Se Kvpios . . . irpofiXeiru 
on r^et 17 17/xepa airov), and only here in the NT, where the re- 
ligious idea makes it practically a Greek equivalent for providere. 

XI. 40.] THEY AND WE I91 

KpeiTTov ti is explained by IVa fit] x w P l s TfJ-we TekenoQuxriv, which 
does not mean that " our experience was necessary to complete 
their reward," but that God in his good providence reserved the 
messianic T€A.e<Wis of Jesus Christ until we could share it. This 
TeAeiWis is now theirs (9 15 12 23 ), as it is ours — if only we will show 
a like strenuous faith during the brief interval before the end. 
This is the thought of i2 lf -, catching up that of io S6f \ God 
deferred the coming of Christ, in order to let us share it (cp. 1 P 
jio. 20^ his p] an being to make room for us as well. The 
TcAeiWis has been realized in Jesus ; till he reappears (<p 28 io 12 - 87 ) 
to complete the purpose of God for us, we must hold on in faith, 
heartened by the example of these earlier saints. Their faith 
was only granted a far-off vision of the hoped-for end. We have 
seen that end realized in Jesus ; therefore, with so many more 
resources and with so short a time of strain, we ought to be 
nerved for our endurance by the sense of our noble predecessors. 
It is not that we experience KpfiTrov n by our immediate experi- 
ence of Christ (io 14 ), who fulfils to us what these former folk 
could not receive before his coming. This is true, but it is not 
exactly the point here. The Kpalrrov tl is our inclusion in this 
People of God for whom the TeAeiWis of Christ was destined, 
the privilege of the KpdrTwv SiaOrjKr). The writer does not go 
the length of saying that Christ suffered in the persons of these 
saints and heroes (as, e.g., Paulinus of Nola, Epist. xxxviii. 3 : 
"ab initio saeculorum Christus in omnibus suis patitur ... in 
Abel occisus a fratre, in Noe irrisus a filio, in Abraham peregrin- 
atus, in Isaac oblatus, in Jacob famulatus, in Joseph venditus, 
in Moyse expositus et fugatus, in prophetis lapidatus et sectus, 
in apostolis terra marique iactatus, et multis ac uariis beatorum 
martyrum crucibus frequenter occisus "), and this consideration 
tells against the theory of a " mystical " sense in v. 26 . The con- 
clusion of the whole matter rather is (vv. 89 - 40 ) that the reward of 
their faith had to be deferred till Christ arrived in our day. The 
TcXetWts is entirely wrought out through Christ, and wrought 
out for all. It covers all God's People (cp. 12 23 ), for now the 
Promise has been fulfilled to these earlier saints. But the writer 
significantly ignores any idea of their co-operation in our faith ; 
we neither pray to them, nor they for us. Josephus interpreted 
the sacrifice of Isaac, as if Abraham reconciled himself to it by 
reflecting that his son would be a heavenly support to him {Ant. 
i. 13. 3, tKeivov, i.e. tov 6cov, T-qv if/v^rjv ttjv o~r]v TrpooSe^op.evov 
kclI Trap avTw /ca0£§ovTos* ccrei re p.01 eis Kr)oep.6va /cat yrjpoKO/xov 
. . . tov 6e6v olvtl cravTov irapeo-xqp,ivo<i). Such ideas lie outside 
the range of our epistle, and there is significance in the fact that 
the writer never touches them. 


In Clement of Alexandria's comment (Strom, iv. 16) on this passage, he 
quotes io 32 " 39 (reading beafxofc /xov : eavrovs : xP 0VLe ^ '■ biKaibs fJ-ov), then 
hurries on to II 38 -I2 2 (reading iXi8da9r]crav, iireipdcrdrjo-av, iv <p6vq> fi. diri- 
Oavov : iv iprjfilais : ttjv iirayyeXiav tov deov), and adds : diroXeiireTai voeiv rb 
Kara, Trapacnd)Tri]cnv eiprjfxivov /xbvoi. iiruptpei 70OV irepl ijfj,uiv Kpeirrbv ti 
■n-poeibofxivov tov deov (dyadbs yap r)v), 'Lva fit] X W P' S VPtiv Te\eiw6wo~i. The 
collocation of ttjv iirayyeXiav with tov deov is a mistake. 

From the ifjp.coi' . . . ^(jlwk of the epilogue the writer now 
passes into a moving appeal to his readers (i2 lf -). 

1 Therefore (Toiyapovv, as in 1 Th 4 8 ), with all this host of witnesses 
encircling us, we (Kal 7]/j.e?s, emphatic) must strip off sin with its clinging 
folds, to run our appointed course steadily (81 viro/jLovr)s), 2 our eyes fixed upon 
Jesus as the pioneer and the perfection of faith — upon Jesus who, in order to 
reach his own appointed joy, steadily endured (vwi^eivev) the cross, thinking 
nothing of its shame, and is now " seated at the right hand" of the throne of 

The writer now returns to the duty of iwofiovrj as the im- 
mediate exercise of 7rcttis (io 36f -), the supreme inspiration being 
the example of Jesus (i2 1-3 ) as the great Believer, who shows us 
what true u-io-tis means, from beginning to end, in its heroic 

Course (tov irpoKiifx^vov rj/xlv aywva). 

The general phraseology and idea of life as a strenuous dydiv, in the 
Hellenic sense (see on 5 14 ), may be seen in many passages, e.g. Eurip. Orest. 
846 f. : 

7rp6s 5' ' kpyetov olxerai Xewv, 
ifsvxys dyibva Tbv wpoKelfievov iripi 
bwawv, iv $ £r/v r) davetv Vfids xP €t ^ v t 

Herod, viii. 102 (ttoXXovs 7ro\\d/as dywvas bpa/miovrai ol "EXXrjves) and ix. 60 
(dyQvos fieyt&Tov irpOKeifiivov iXevdiprjv elvai f) bebovXwfiivrjv ttjv 'EXXdda), and 
especially in 4 Mac 14 5 iravres (the seven martyrs), ibcrirep iv' ddavacrias bdbv 
TpixovTes, iwl Tbv bid tQv fSaadvwv ddvaTov Zairevbov, and Philo's de tnigrat. 
Abrah. 24, Kal yap 'A(3paa/x irio-Tevaas " iyyi^eiv 0ei$" (Gn 1S 23 , cp. He II 6 ) 
Xeyerai. iav /xivroi wopevofievos ixrrre Ka/nrj (cp. He I2 3 ) ixr)Te padvfj.f)arj, cos 
trap endrepa iKTpairbfievos (cp. He I2 13 ) TrXavaadai ttjs fj^arjs Kai evdvTevovs 
5ia/j.apTwv bbov, fiLfj-rjcrdfievos be tovs dyadous bpo/nels rd aTabiov aTTTataTus 
dvvo-Q tov fitov, o~Terpdv(j}v Kal &9Xcjv iira^lwv Tev^erat irpbs r6 tAos iXdwv. 
The figure is elaborately worked out in 4 Mac 17 11 " 14 (dXrjdws yap r)v dyuv 
delos b bC avTwv yeyevrjfiivos. TjdXodeTei yap Tore dpeTT) Si VTro/j.ovrjs boKifid- 
^ovcra' r6 vIkos iv dcpdapala iv fuifj TroXvxpoviij}. 'EXeafdp be irporiymvi^eTo' r\ be 
fif)TT]pTu)v eirrd iraibwv ivqdXei' ot be dbeX<poi r)yuvL£ovTO" brvpavvos dvT7)yix>vL£eT0' 
6 be k6o-/xos Kal b tQv dvdpwirwv /3ios idewpei), where the Maccabean martyrs are 
athletes of the true Law ; but the imagery is more rhetorical and detailed 
than in Ilpds 'Eppaiovs, where the author, with a passing touch of metaphor, 
suggests more simply and suggestively the same idea. 

"Exoi'tcs . . . diTo0e'jj.6^ot . . . d<J>opwcTes, three participles 
with the verb after the second, as in Jude 20 - 21 ; but here the first, 
not the second, denotes the motive. Too-outo^ 1 (thrown forward, 
for emphasis) K^o^tcs irepiKeifievov "rjjULtk ke<f>09 papTupwi'. MapTupes 
here, in the light of n 2 - 4 - 5 - 39 , denotes those who have borne 

1 lljXlKOVTOV, h* W. 


personal testimony to the faith. Heaven is now crowded with 
these (12 23 ), and the record of their evidence and its reward enters 
into our experience. Such Trvev/Mara SikcuW TcreXetw/AeVwv speak 
to us (i i 4 ) still ; we are, or ought to be, conscious of their record, 
which is an encouragement to us (kcu rj/xth) lir co-^arov tw 
■f]fjiepu>v Tovroiv v 'i 2 ). It is what we see in them, not what they 
see in us, that is the writer's main point ; 7repi/myu.€voi/ suggests 
that the idea of them as witnesses of our struggle (see the quot. 
from 4 Mac, above) is not to be excluded, but this is merely 
suggested, not developed. Maprvs is already, as in Rev 2 13 
etc., beginning to shade off into the red sense of "martyr" (cp. 
Kattenbusch in Zeitsch. fur neatest. Wissenschaft, 1903, pp. inf.; 
G. Kriiger, ibid., 1916, pp. 264 f. ; Reitzenstein in Hermes, 191 7, 
pp. 442 f., and H. Delehaye in Analecta Bollandiana, 192 1, pp. 
20 f.), though the writer uses the word with a special application 
here, not as usually of the Christian apostles nor of the prophets, 
but of the heroes and heroines of the People in pre-Christian 
ages. He does not even call Jesus Christ paprus (as does the 
author of the Johannine apocalypse). 

The meaning of " witnesses of our ordeal " {i.e. spectators) is supported by 
passages like Epict. iv. 4. 31, ovdels dyibv 1 Sixa dopufiov yiverac ttoWovs del 
irpoyv/<TTas elvat, ttoXXoi)? [roi'j] iiriKpavydfavTas, iroWous iwicraras, iroWovs 
Beards, and particularly Longinus, de sublim. xiv. 2, who, in arguing that many 
people catch their inspiration from others, notes : t£ yap 6vri /j.iya to 
ayil)vi<T/j.a, toiovtov virorideadai rwv Idluv \6yiov diKacrrripiov teal dearpov, Kal 
iv rrfKiKovrois tfpwai Kpircus re Kal ndprvciv iiwixeiv T ^ v ypa(po/xivwv ei)0t'i>as 
ireiraixQai. In Educational Aims and Methods (p. 28), Sir Joshua Fitch 
writes: " There is a remarkable chapter in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in 
which the writer unfolds to his countrymen what is in fact a National Portrait 
Gallery, as he enumerates, one by one, the heroes and saints of the Jewish 
history, and adds to his catalogue these inspiring words . . . [He n 32 " 34 ]. 
And, finally, he draws this conclusion from his long retrospect . . . [He 12 1 ]. 
How much of the philosophy of history is condensed into that single sentence t 
It is suggestive to us of the ethical purpose which should dominate all our 
historical teaching. To what end do we live in a country whose annals are 
enriched by the story of great talents, high endeavours and noble sacrifices, if 
we do not become more conscious of the possibilities of our own life, and 
more anxious to live worthily of the inheritance which has come down to 

Nc<}>os (never in this sense in LXX) has its usual Greek mean- 
ing of "host" (Latin nimbus or nubes), as, e.g., in Herod, viii. 
109, ve<f>o<; Toaovro avBpwrrwv. In oyKOf rxTrofle'iAeeoi ird^Ta Kal ttj^ 
euTrepioTaroy auapTiay, o-/kov is thrown first for the sake of 
emphasis: "any encumbrance that handicaps us." The conjec- 

1 The broader conception of the moral life as an athletic contest recurs in 
Epict. iii. 25. 1-3, (TKi'ipai, &v irpoidov apx^fJ-evos, rivusv /xiv iKparycras, rivuv 8' 
oS ... oil yap diroKvrjTiov rbv dyQva tov fiiyio-rov dyuvifo/jLevois, dXXd Kal 
7r\777ds \T]TTTiov' ov yap virip Trd\r)s Kal wayKparlov 6 dywv rrpdKeirai . . . dXX' 
iirip avrrjs evrvx'-o.'s Kal ev5aip.ovias. 



ture okvov (P. Junius) is relevant, but superfluous ; sloth is a 
hindrance, but the general sense of oyKos in this connexion is 
quite suitable. Compare Apul. Apologia, 19 ("etenim in 
omnibus ad vitae munia utendis quicquid aptam moderationem 
supergreditur, oneri potius quam usui exuberat "), and the evening 
prayer of the Therapeutae (Philo, vit. Contempl 3) to have their 
souls lightened from tov twv alcrdTjaewv /ecu aur^Taiv oyKov. 
"OyKos had acquired in Greek literature the sense of pride, both 
bad and good, and it has been taken here (so sah = " having 
forsaken all pride ") as an equivalent for pride in the sense of 
conceit (fastus), as, e.g., by Bengel and Seeberg. But what the 
readers seem to have been in danger of was not arrogance so 
much as a tendency to grow disheartened. The metaphor is not 
" reducing our weight," though oy*os had sometimes this associa- 
tion with fleshiness ; it refers to the weight of superfluous things, 
like clothes, which would hinder and handicap the runner. Let 
us strip for the race, says the writer. Put unmetaphorically, 
the thought is that no high end like maris is possible apart 
from a steady, unflinching resolve to do without certain things. 
What these encumbrances are the writer does not say (cp. 
ii 15 - 25 - 26 ); he implies that if people will set themselves to the 
course of faith in this difficult world, they will soon discover 
what hampers them. In kcu -n]v euircpioTaTov ap.apTicu', the article 
does not imply any specific sin like that of apostasy (v. 25 ) ; it is 
afiapTta in general, any sin that might lead to apostasy (e.g. v. 16 ). 
The sense of einrepLo-raTos can only be inferred from the context 
and from the analogy of similar compounds, for it appears to have 
been a verbal adjective coined by the writer ; at any rate no in- 
stance of its use in earlier writers or in the papyri has been as 
yet discovered. As the phrase goes with 6.iroQep.evoi, the intro- 
ductory kcu linking ttjc . . . dp.apTiai' with oyxov, ev7repi(TTaTo<; 
probably denotes something like "circumstans nos" (vg), from 
Trtpii<TT avai ( = cingere). The eu is in any case intensive. The 
ophylact suggested " endangering " (cY rjv cvkoAws tis eis -n-epi- 
crracrcis €/A7rt7rrtt' ovStv yap ovtu> /avSuvwSt? ws afxapria), as though 
it were formed from 7re/3urruo-is (distress or misery). Taken 
passively, it might mean (a) " popular," or (b) " easily avoided," 
or (c) "easily contracted." (a) 7reptoTaT09 may mean what 
people gather round (7rcpio-raT£w) to admire, as, e.g., in Isokrates, 
de Pertnut. 135 E, 6av/xaToirouai<; Tais . . . v7ro twc olvoiJtoiv 
7r€pio-TaTots yevofxevais, and evTrepLaTarov would then = " right 
popular." This is at anv rate more relevant and pointed than 
(o), from Trepua-rafjiai, which Chrysostom once suggested (rr)v 

€ irepLKrrafxcvTjv rj/jLas rj tt)v eukoAcos 7repi<rracriv hvvafX€vr]v 
iradeiv : p.a\\oi> 8e rovro, pa&iov yap iav OeXw/xev irepiyevivdai rrj<; 
d/mpTias), though Trtpiarai 05 does mean "admired," and airepi- 


oraTos is sometimes, by way of contrast, " unsupported." On the 
other hand, d7re/3io-TaTos may mean "unencumbered," as in the 
contrast drawn by Maximus of Tyre (Diss, xx.) between the 
simple life (a-rrXovv /3iov xal aTrepicTTaTov ko\ iXtvdtpias iTnjfioXov) 
and a life t<2 ov^ d7rAu> dAA' dvayKaito koX TripL(TTd(T€(DV yefWVTL. 
The former life he declares was that of the golden age, before 
men worried themselves with the encumbrances of civilization. 
In the light of this, euirepiVraTos might mean "which sorely 
hinders " (i.e. active), a sense not very different from (vg) " cir- 
cumstans nos," or "which at all times is prepared for us" (syr). 
(c) is suggested by Theodoret, who rightly takes r) afxapria as 
generic, and defines eirn-epio-Tarov as cukoAojs o~vvLO-Ta/j.€i'rjv re kcu 
yivofievrjv. kcu yap 6<p6a\[i6<; ScAed^cTcu, olkoy] KaraOeXyerai, acprj 
yapyapi^erai, kcu yXwcrcra pacrra StoAicdaiVci, kcu 6 Aoytcr/xos irepl 
to x^P 0V 6$vppoiro<s. But "easily caught " is hardly tense enough 
for the context. Wetstein, harking back to 7reptcrTa.Tos and irepi- 
o-Tacrts, connects the adjective with the idea of the heroic on- 
lookers. " Peccatum uestrum seu defectio a doctrina Christi 
non in occulto potest committi et latere ; non magis quam lapsus 
cursoris, sed conspicietur ab omnibus. Cogitate iterum, specta- 
tors adesse omnes illos heroas, quorum constantiam laudaui, 
quo animo uidebunt lapsum uestrum ? qua fronte ante oculos 
ipsorum audebitis tale facinus committere?" But "open" or 
"conspicuous" is, again, too slight and light a sense. If any 
conjecture had to be accepted, cuirepioraXTov would be the best. 
Cp. the schol. on Iliad, ii. 183 (diro Sc ykaxvav /3dAc), yXaiva. 
TCTpdywvos ^Aayxvs V c ' ? °£ v Xr/yovcra.' ane/SaXc Be avrrjv 81a to 
€VTrepL(jTa\Tov. Hence Bentley's note : " Lego ttjv virep iKavov 
aLTrapriav . . . immo potius evTrepLO-TaXrov airapTiav." In Soph. 
Aj'ax, 821, the hero says of the sword on which he is about to 
fall, " I have fixed it in the ground, ev Trcpio-Tci'Aa?, right care- 
fully." The verbal adjective would therefore mean, in this 
connexion, "close-clinging," while ditapTiav ( = burden) would be 
practically a synonym for oyxov. 

Tpe'xwjiey . . . d^opwrres, for the motive-power in life comes 
from inward convictions. What inspires Christians to hold out 
and to endure is their vision of the unseen (cp. Herodian, v. 

6. 7, 6 8' 'AvTODVlVOS €#€€ . . , €9 T€ TOV $£OV aTTofiXeTTtoV KCU TOVS 

YaAivous dvT€^ojv tu>v LTnru>v' iracrdv Tt T1JV oooi' iqvvt Tpe^ouv e/xTraXiv 
eavrov afpopwv re els to irpoaOev tov 6eov), as the writer has 
already shown (n lf *). T6f ■n-poKei'p.evov' ifjp.Lv dywca is built on the 
regular (p. 193) phrase for a course being set or assigned; e.g. 
Lucian in de Mercede Conduct. 11, ao\ Z\ 6 iirkp ti}? 'A^x''? 5 dywv 
kol i-Trkp airavTos tov (Slov totc npoKelaOaL Sokci : Plato's Laches, 
182a, ov yap dyatvos dQXrjTai ecr/xev Kai iv 01s tj/xlv 6 dywv 
irpoKiLTai ktA , and Josephus, Ant. Viii. 12. 3, 01 irpOK(.ip.iviav avrois 


aOXwv, iirav Trepu ti <nrov8a<TU)criv, ov SiaXeiVovcrt Trcpl tovt ivepyovvres. 
For d<|)opwi'T€s cis (v. 2 ), see Epictetus, ii. 19, where the philosopher 
says he wishes to make his disciples free and happy, eis tov 6thv 
a<f>opu>vTa<; eV 7ravrl koI fjbixpw /cat /AcyaAw. An almost exact parallel 
occurs in the epitaph proposed by the author of 4 Mac (17 10 ) 
for the Maccabean martyrs, ot «at e^eStV^o-av to <tQvo% cts Oeov 
a<popwvT€S Kal p-^XP 1 &°-va.Tov Tas /?ao"dVous {nrop.eCvavr€<;. Acpopav 
implies the same concentrated l attention as a.Tro/3\eTreiv (see on 
ii 26 ): "with no eyes for any one or anything except Jesus." 
'Iyjo-ouk comes at the end of the phrase, as in 2 9 , and especially 
3 1 ; the terms rbv ttjs ttio-tcws dpxrjyoy Kat "fekeiwf\v describe 
him as the perfect exemplar of moris in his earthly life (cp. 2 13 ), 
as the supreme pioneer (dpxT)yos as in 2 10 , though here as the 
pioneer of personal faith, not as the author of our faith) and the 
perfect embodiment of faith (TeXeiwrrjs, a term apparently coined 
by the writer). He has realized faith to the full, from start to 
finish. TeXeiwTvjs does not refer to reXeiwOwo-iv in ii 40 ; it does 
not imply that Jesus "perfects" our faith by fulfilling the divine 

In os &vTi tt)S irpoKeijjLeVifjs auTw xapds, the x a P^- 1S the unselfish 
joy implied in 2 8 - 9 , "that fruit of his self-sacrifice which must be 
presupposed in order that the self-sacrifice should be a reason- 
able transaction. Self-sacrificing love does not sacrifice itself 
but for an end of gain to its object ; otherwise it would be folly. 
Does its esteeming as a reward that gain to those for whom it 
suffers, destroy its claim to being self-sacrifice ? Nay, that which 
seals its character as self-sacrificing love is, that this to it is a 
satisfying reward" (M'Leod Campbell, The Nature of 'the Atone- 
ment, p. 23). As Epictetus bluntly put it, eav p.rj iv ™ auTu> y 
to €vcre/3es Kal (rvp.<pepov, oi Svvarat awOrjvat to tvo-efits Iv rivi 
(i. 27. 14). So, in the Odes of Solomon 31 8 " 12 , Christ says: 

"They condemned me when I stood up . . . 
But I endured and held my peace, 
that I might not be moved by them. 
But I stood unshaken like a firm rock, 
that is beaten by the waves and endures. 
And I bore their bitterness for humility's sake ; 
that I might redeem my people and inherit it." 

Hence dra (as in v. 16 avrl /Spwcrews: cp. Plato's Menex. 237 A, 

uVSpas ayaOovs lira.ivovvrf.'i, 01 . . . rr/v reXcvrrjv olvtl tt}? twv £wv- 

tcov o-wTTjptas ^AAa|avro) means, " to secure." The sense of 

1 Epictetus, in his praise of Herakles (iii. 24), declares that his hero lived 
and worked with a firm faith in Zeus the Father. " He considered that 
Zeus was his own father ; he called Zeus father, and did everything with his 
eyes fixed on Zeus (irpbs tueivov a<popu>v Ihrparrev & ZirparTev)." 


irpoKei/jieVT)? (cp. v. 1 ) tells against the rendering of Am . . . xapAs 
as " instead of the joy which had been set before him," as though 
the idea were that of n 25 - 26 , either the renunciation of his pre- 
incarnate bliss (so Wetstein, von Soden, Windisch, Goodspeed, 
etc., recently), or the renunciation of joy in the incarnate life (so 
Chrysostom, Calvin), i.e. the natural pleasure of avoiding the way 
of the cross. This is a Pauline idea (2 Co 8 9 , Phil 2 6 - 7 ), which 
the writer might have entertained ; but (p. 1) he never hints at it 
elsewhere, and the other interpretation tallies with the idea of 
2 8 - 9 . Inspired by this, Jesus uTTCfieiee ( + tov, p 13 D*) oraupoV — 
as we might say in English " a cross." Aristotle {Nik. Eth. ix. 
1, 2) declares that courage is praiseworthy just because it involves 
pain, xaXfTTwrepov yap rd Xvinjpa vTrofxivetv 77 to. rjSewv airi^ecrOai : 
no doubt the end in view is pleasant (to Kara, tt/v avSpuav tc'Aos 
rjSv, cp. He 12 11 ), but the end is not always visible. In aurxu'njs 
KaTa<f>pocT)o-a$ it is not the horrible torture of the crucifixion, but 
its stinging indignity (cp. Gal 3 13 for an even darker view), which 
is noted as a hard thing; it was a punishment for slaves and 
criminals, for men of whom the world felt it was well rid (cp. 
1 i 38a ). But Jesus did not allow either the dread or the experience 
of this to daunt him. He rose above " indignity and contumely, 
that is to say, all that would most touch that life which man has 
in the favour of man, and which strikes more deeply than 
physical infliction, because it goes deeper than the body — wound- 
ing the spirit" (M'Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, 
pp. 229, 230). Musonius (ed. Hense, x.) defined vfipis or ala^yvr] 
as otov Xoi8opr]0rjvai 77 TrXrjyrjvcu rj i/xTTTVcrOrjvai, wv to ^aXeTru)TaTOv 
■n-Xyjyai. But the special aiaxuvt] here is that of crucifixion. 
This, says the writer, Jesus did not allow to stand between him 
and loyalty to the will of God. It is one thing to be sensitive to 
disgrace and disparagement, another thing to let these hinder us 
from doing our duty. Jesus was sensitive to such emotions ; he 
felt disgrace keenly. But instead of allowing these feelings to 
cling to his mind, he rose above them. This is the force of Kcn-a- 
(fipoi'TJo-as here, as in the last clause of St. Philip of Neri's well- 
known maxim, " Spernere mundum, spernere te ipsum, spernere 
te sperni." It is the only place in the NT where Kara^povtiv is 
used in a good sense (true and false shame are noted in 
Sir 4 20, 21 7rept tt}s i/^X*? 5 <T0V H-V o.lo"xyv6fi<;' eoriv yap alo-)(yvq eVa- 
yovaa dfiapriav, /cat Icttiv cuctywti Sd£a ko.1 ^dpis). The climax is 
put in one of the writer's favourite quotations from the psalter ; 
only this time he uses KCKdOiKev (perfect here alone for the more 
usual aorist, i 3 8 1 io 12 ) = and so has entered on his x a P° L - 

Jesus thus had to suffer worse than anything you have had to 
bear; this is the thought of vv. 3 - 4 , which round off the first 
movement of the appeal in i2 lf - : — 


8 Compare him who steadily endured (vnrope|i,evT)K<$Ta) all that hostility 
from sinful men, so as to keep your own hearts from fainting and failing, 
4 You have not had to shed blood yet in the struggle against sin. 

The writer assumes, as in 5 7f -, a close knowledge of the 
Passion story. Before proceeding to argue that suffering is a 
fruitful discipline, with which God honours them (v. 5f -), he re- 
minds them that as yet they have not had to face the worst (v. 4 ). 
The metaphor of the race-course dies away into the general 
military metaphor of v. 4 , where dpap-ua is half-personified as 
in 3 13 . 'AeaXoyuraaOe l (the ydp is corroborative : " yes, d^aXo- 
yiaaaQe " ktA.) is more than KaTako^CTaTe (3 1 ) : " consider him and 
compare his treatment at the hands of these sinners (dpapTuXwy 
as in Mk 14 41 ) with what you are called to suffer." Toicump' echoes 
oraupoV and aiaxofT]?, and is explained by pe'xpis cupa-ros in the next 
verse, while u-n-opepenrjicoTa is another aoristic perfect like K€Kddu<cv. 

'AvTiKoylav is used here of active opposition, as in Ps 17 44 
(pvcrai /x,e i$ avriXoyiuiv Xaov), where X ca R read dnriXoyias, and 
in the papyri (e.g. Tebt. P. 138 [ii B.C.] dimAoyids p.a\r\v). 
Like the verb (cp. Jn io 12 , Ro io 21 ), the noun covers more than 
verbal opposition, as in Nu 20 13 and Jude u 177 avriXoyia tov Kope. 
The words els auToV (or iavrov, A P syr hkl etc. : in semetipsum, 
vg.) have no special emphasis ; all the writer means to say is 
that Jesus himself, Jesus in his own person, had to encounter 
malevolent opposition. 

This is one of the places at which textual corruption began early. The 
curious v. I. iavroijs finds early support in N* D* (avrotjs, p 13 N c 33. 256. 1288. 
1319*. 1739. 2127 Lat syr v e boh Orig.) ; p 13 n* and D* go wrong here as in 
1 1 35 , D* and Lat as at 1 1 23 (insertion). It is extremely unlikely that the read- 
ing arose from a recollection of passages like Nu 16 37 (Koran, Dathan, and 
Abiram) rrylacrav to. Trvpeia tCov afj.aprw\wv tovtwv iv (i.e. at the cost of) rah 
\pvxa-is avrCiv, or Pr 8 3a 01 St eh 4/xi afiaprdvovTes acrefiovatv els rds eavrwv ipvx&s. 
The notion that an evil-doer really injured himself was a commonplace (e.g. 
M. Aurel. g* 6 afj-apravuv iavrip afiaprdvei' 6 6.5iku>v eavrbv a5iicei t the remark 
of Chrysippus quoted by Plutarch in de Stoic, repugn, xvi., &5iKei<r0ai v<j> 
iavrov rbv aSiKOvvra ko.1 avrbv dSiKelv, 8tclv &\\ov &5iktj, Aristotle in Magn. 
Moral. 1196a, 6 &pa ravra fir/ Trp&TTwi> adtKeXavrdv, and Xen. Hellen. i. "J. 19, 
rjfj.apTr)K6Tas to, fiAyuTTa. els deovs re ical vfias avro'us) ; Philo works it out in 
quod deter. 15, 16. But there is no point in suggesting here, as this reading 
does, that the a/iapTwXol were acting against their better selves, unconsciously 
injuring their own souls, as they maltreated Jesus. The writer deals with sin 
in a more straightforward and direct way, and, in spite of all arguments to the 
contrary (e.g. by Westcott, von Soden, Seeberg, Peake, Wickham), this 
seems a far-fetched idea here. It is like the similar interpretation of eavrovs 
in io 34 , apiece of irrelevant embroidery; it " looks like the conceit which 
some reader wrote upon his margin " (A. B. Davidson). Theodoret took els 
iavrovs with ava\oylaao-9e = ii think to yourselves." Which is not natural, 
though the Ethiopic version follows this interpretation. In some early 
versions (e.g. sah arm) neither els tavrbv nor els eavrovs seems to be implied. 

1 'Ava\oyl^ofiai, though not a LXX term, begins to be used in Hellenistic 
Judaism (e.g. Ps.-Sol 8 7 C ve\oyio-d/xT]v ra Kpl/j-ara i%v Beov) in a religious sense. 


In iva . . . ^Xoo/iewot, ckAuojucvoi (c^XeXu/xtVoi p 13 D*) might 
go with Tats yf/v\al<; ifxwv (cp. Polybius, XX. 4. 7, ov fiovov tois 
aw[jLa(riv i£e\v6r)aav, aAAa *ai tous i/'u^ais), as readily as 

(cp. Job io 1 Kauvw &k T7J if/vxo fjcov). Both verbs connect with 
it, to express the general sense of inward exhaustion and faint- 
heartedness ; indeed, Aristotle uses both to describe runners 
relaxing and collapsing, once the goal has been passed : hrl toU 
Ka/jLTrTrjpaiv (at the goal of the race, not till then) iKirviovo-i koX 

eVAvovrai' irpoopC)VT€<; yap to Trepan oi Kap-vovcn irportpov {Rhet. 

iii. 9. 2). In v. 4 ou-irw (yap is superfluously added by D L 440. 
491. 823 arm sah boh) ktA. does not necessarily imply that they 
would be called upon to shed their blood in loyalty to their 
faith, as if martyrdom was the inevitable result of tenacity. Nor 
is the writer blaming them ; he does not mean to suggest that if 
they had been truly decided for God against the world, they 
would by this time have suffered fit'xpis aip-aTos. He is shaming 
them, not blaming them. " Your sufferings have been serious and 
sharp (io 32f -), but nothing to what others before you, and especi- 
ally Jesus, have had to bear. Will you give way under a lesser 
strain than theirs?" The coming of the messiah was to be 
heralded by birth-pangs of trouble for his adherents on earth, 
and it might be supposed that the writer implies here : " The 
Coming One (io 37 ) is near (12 26 ), as is evident from your woes ; 
do not fail, but be ready for him." But this line of thought is 
not worked out elsewhere by the writer, and is not necessary to 
his argument at this point. To fight p.e'xpis atuaTos is to resist 
to the death ; cp. the cry of Judas Maccabaeus to his troops 
(2 Mac 13 14 ), ayuiviaao-Oai /txe'^pi davdrov. Me^pis atpxiTos has the 
same meaning of a mortal combat, e.g. in Heliod. vii. 8, ttJs 
/xe^pts aip.aTos (rracrcws. 

Note another case of rhetorical alliteration in aifi. &vtik. . . . d/uapr. 
dvTaywvit^o/j.ei'OL (cp. Clem. Horn. iv. 5> "7'6s rocraiiTrjv 8vva/juv durayuvL- 
ffatrdai), and the use of array bsvitfcrOai above (v. J ) in the quot. from 4 Mac. 

The connexion of thought in vv. 5f - is : God has not yet asked 
from you the supreme sacrifice (v. 4 ), and, besides (vv. 5f -), any 
demand he makes upon your courage is in your highest 

5 And have you forgotten the word of appeal that reasons with you as 
sons ? — 

" My son, never make light of the Lord's discipline^ 

never faint (iKkvov) under his reproofs; 
8 for the Lord disciplines the man he loves, 
and scourges every son he receives." 

7 Lt is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons ; 
for where is the son who is not disciplined by his father? 8 Discipline is the 
portion {fxtroxoi yeySvacrt, as 3 14 ) 0/ all ; if you get no discipline, then you are 
not sons, but bastards. 9 Why, we had jathers of our flesh to discipline us, 


and we yielded to them ! Shall we not far more submit to the Father of our 
spirits, and so live ? 10 For while their discipline was only for a time, and 
inflicted at their pleasure, he disciplines us for our good, that we may share in 
his own holiness. u Discipline always seems for the time to be a thing of 
pain, not of joy ; but those who are trained by it reap the fruit of it afterwards 
in the peace of an upright life. 

With the interrogative k<u eKXeXijaGe kt\. (v. 5 ) the writer 
opens his next argument and appeal. All such vtto/iovt} means 
a divine iraiScia or moral training, which we have the honour of 
receiving from God. Instead of adducing the example of Jesus, 
however (see on 5 7 - 8 ), he quotes from the book of Proverbs 
(vv. 5 - 6 ), and then applies the general idea (vv. 7_n ). 'EKkavOd- 
vea6aL (not a LXX term) in v. 6 is slightly stronger than the more 
common iTrt,\av6dvea6ai, though it may be rhetorically chosen 
for the sake of assonance after cKXvopei'oi. The impa/cX^crts is 
personified rhetorically; °Hns (2 3 ) up,iy (for the scripture applies 
to all believers) o>s uiols SiaXeyeTcu. It is the 7rapa«A.^cris of 
God, who speaks as a father to his son (vU p.ov), though in the 
original "son" is merely the pupil of the sage (personifying 
the divine wisdom). TJapaKX^cris in Alexandrian Judaism " is 
the regular term for ' an appeal ' to an individual to rise to the 
higher life of philosophy" (Conybeare's ed. of Philo's de vit. 
Contempt.^ p. 201). The quotation is from Pr 3 11 ' 12 (A) : 

vie, fir] oXiywpci TraiSa'as Kvpi'ov, 

/xrjSe ckXijou vtt avrov iXcy^ofxivo';' 
ov yap aycnra Ki'ptos Trai&evei (cXey^ci, B) 

[xacTTiydi St irdvTa vlov ov Tvapa^i^trai. 

After vU, |xou is added (except by D* 31 Old Latin, Clem.), but 
otherwise the citation is word for word. Philo (De Congressu. 
Erud. 31) quotes the same passage to prove that discipline and 
hardship are profitable for the soul (ovtws apa r) eViVX^is /cai 
vov6eo~ia KaXbv vevo/ucrrai, wore 8l avrrjs rj 7rpo? 6eov o/JLoXoyia 
o-vyy£v£ia yiverai. Tt yap olK€iorepov uial 7raTpos 77 vlov irarpi ;). The 
LXX contains a double mistranslation, (a) It is at least doubt- 
ful if the Hebrew text of the second line means " be not weary 
of"; the alternative is a parallel to the first line, "scorn not." 
(b) It is certain that the second line of v. 6 originally ran, " he 
afflicts the man in whom he delights," or "and delights in him as 
a father in his son." Our writer, following the free LXX version, 
notes the twofold attitude of men under hardship. They may 
determine to get through it and get over it, as if it had no 
relation to God, seeing nothing of him in it. Stronger natures 
take this line ; they summon up a stoical courage, which dares 
the world to do its worst to them. This is oXiywpeti' iraiSeia? 
Kopiou. It ignores any divine meaning in the rough experience. 
Other natures collapse weakly (cKXuctf) ; they see God in the 


trial, but he seems too hard upon them, and they break down 
in self-pity, as if they were victims of an unkind piovidence. 
, EXeYXo| J - e, ' s • • • TrcuSeoei is used, as in Rev 3 19 (ocrovs eav 
<piXQ> eAeyx w *<" waiSev'w), of pointing out and correcting faults; 
fiaoriyoi, as in Judith 8 27 (tis vovOirrjcriv fiao-riyol Kupios tovs 
lyyt-iovTas avrw) and often elsewhere ; irapaoe'xcTai, in the sense 
of Lk 15 2 . In fact, the temper inculcated in this passage 
resembles that of Ps.-Sol i6 llf -, where the writer prays: 

yoyyvcr/Jibv /cat oX(.yo\pv\4a.v iv 6\iif/a. jaa«pwov air i/xov, 
eav afiapTrjcr<a iv tw ere 7raiSev€iv €ts eVicrTpoc^v . . . 
iv t<3 iXiy^ecrOaL i//v)(f]v iv X €l P L 0"a7rpias avrijs . . . 
iv tcj vTro/xeivai. Bikoliov iv Toirrois iXe-qdrjo-iraL vtto Kvpiov. 

In els iraioei'av' uirofieVeTe (v. 7 ), with which the writer begins his 
application of the text, the vigour is lost by the change of ck 
into ci (in a group of late cursives, including 5. 35. 203. 226°. 
241. 242. 257. 337. 378. 383. 487. 506. 547. 623. 794. 917. 1319. 
1831. 1891. 1898. 2127. 2143 -f Theophyl.), and vTro/xeWe is 
indicative, not imperative. 1 To endure rightly, one must endure 
intelligently ; there is a reason for it in God's relations with us 
(d»S viols irpocr4>ep€Tai). npOCT<(>epcTai (cp. Syll. 37 1 13 , i A.D.) 
is a non-biblical Greek term for " treating " or " handling " 
("tractare, agere cum"); cp. Syll. 371 13 , i a.d., and Latyschev's 
Inscript. Antiq. Orae Septentrionalis, i. 2 2 28 tois ^At/cicoTats 
■7rpo(T(pep6ixevo<s tas dSeAc/)OS . . . toi? 8e ttouvIv ws iraTTjp) ; tU goes 
with vtos, as in Mt 7 9 (rts ecrnv €^ ifxwv av6pwTro<;) etc., and ecrnv 
after vlos is rightly omitted by X* A P W 104. 256 vg sah Origen. 
A mood of bitter scepticism about the discipline of provi- 
dence recurs in some contemporary Roman writers ; both Lucan 
(Pharsalia, iv. 807 f., " Felix Roma quidem, civesque habitura 
beatos, | si libertatis superis tarn cura placeret | quam uindicta 
placet") and Tacitus (Hist. i. 3, "nee enim umquam atroci- 
oribus populi Romani cladibus magisve iustis indiciis adprobatum 
est non esse curae deis securitatem nostram, esse ultionem ") 
speak as if the gods showed an unpaternal vindictiveness. But 
the idea of a fatherly providence was far-spread, both within and 
without Judaism. When our author argues : " You think that 
if God were fatherly, he would spare you these hardships ? On 
the contrary, they are the proof of his wise affection " — he is not 
far from Seneca's position (in the de Providen/ia, iv- 7) : " hos 
itaque deus quos probat, quos amat, indurat recognoscit, 
exercet." And in 2 Mac 6 12 the author bids his readers re- 

1 D takes eis iraiSelav with the foregoing irapa(5^x eTa ') as Hofmann does 
with fiaartyol. This leaves viroix-here (vTro/jLelvare D) in quite an effective 
opening position for the next sentence ; but it is not the writer's habit to end 
a quotation with some outside phrase. 


member to.s Tipoyptas p.r} irpbs oXeOpov, dXXa, wpbs 7ratSt'av tow 
yeVous rjp.C)v elvat. According to Sanhedr. ioia (cp. Sifre, Deut. 
32), Rabbi Akiba comforted R. Eliezer on his sick-bed by 
explaining to him that "chastisements are precious," whereas 
the other three rabbis who accompanied him had only praised the 
sick man for his piety. There is a fine passage in Philo's quod 
deter, potiori insid. soleat, 39-40, where he argues that discipline 
at God's hands is better than being left to oneself in sin and 
folly ; evrv^ea-Tepot 8e kcll KpetTTOv; twv dveirLTpoTrevTiav veW 61 
fxaXicrTa p.ev eVioTaa-tas kol dp^Tjs d^ito^eWes (pvaiKfjs, r/v 01 yevvrj- 
(ravTes iiri Tewois KeKXqpwvTai . . . iKeTevuip.ev ovv tov Oebv oi 
crvv€i8r]cr€i tS)V oik«W a.&iKr}/j.a.Tu>v eXey^6p.evoi, KoAdo-at r)p.a<; 
pdXXov 17 TrapzLvai. Similarly, in de sacrificantibus, 1 1, he writes 
of parental care, human and divine, apropos of Deut 14 1 (mot 
iare. Kvpiu) to 6cu> vp.wv) 8y]Xovotl irpovoias Kat Krj8ep.ovLa<; a£uodr)- 
o~op.evoi tt}? cos ck irarpos' rj 8e €7ri/i.e'Aeia tchtovtov Stoto-ei rrjs air' 
av6p<Diru>v oaovTrep, otjuai, /cat 6 eTrip.eXovp.evos Stat^epei. Compare 
M. Aur. 1. 17, to apxovTi /cat TraTpl v7TOTa)(8r}va.i, os ep.eXXe ttomto. 
tov Tixpov d(paipT]o-eiv p.ov (cp. v. 31). When the king asks, in 
the Epist. Arist. 248, what is the supreme instance of neglect 
(ayLte'Xeta), the Jew answers, el tckvcov ac/>povris tis €117, /cat firj Kara 
7rdvTa rpoirov dyayeiV o-irev8oi . . . to 8e eTri8elo-6ai 7rai8eiav 
aweppoavvr] 1 ; p-eracr^eZv, 6eov 8vvdpei tovto yiverai. 

Jerome writes in his letter (Epist. xxii. 39) to Eustochium : " haec est 
sola retributio, cum sanguis sanguine conpensatur et redempti cruore Christi 
pro redemptore libenter occumbimus. quis sanctorum sine certamine corona- 
tus est ? Abel Justus occiditur ; Abraham uxorem periclitatur amittere, et, 
ne in inmensum uolumen extendam, quaere et invenies singulos diuersa per- 
pessos. solus in deliciis Salomon fuit et forsitan ideo corruit. quern enim 
diligit dominus, corripit ; castigat autem omnem filium, quern recipit." He 
often quotes this verse ( 6 ) in his letters of counsel and warning. Thus in 
lxviii. 1 he prefixes it with the remark, " magna ira est, quando peccantibus 
non irascitur deus." The modern parallel would be Browning's hero in 
Chrislmas-Eve and Easter- Day (pt. 2, xxxiii. ), who is 

"happy that I can 
Be crossed and thwarted as a man, 
Not left in God's contempt apart, 
With ghastly smooth life." 

In v. 8 TrdVTes (sc. viol yvycrioi) recalls irdrra ul6V (v. 6 ). NoOot 
are children born out of wedlock, who are left to themselves; 
the father is not sufficiently interested in them to inflict on 
them the discipline that fits his legitimate children for their 
place in the home. No#os (not a LXX term) seems to mean 
born of mixed marriages, in Wis 4 s (cp. Aristoph. Birds, 1650- 
1652, vo0os yap et kov yvqcno<i . . . &v ye £evr}<; -ywaiicds). So Philo 
compares polytheists and lovers of material pleasure to twv Ik 
ir6pvr)<; dwoKv-qdevTw (de Confus. ling. 28), as distinguished from 


the sons of God. The double lore (not ^tc) makes the sentence 
more vivid ; the writer supposes an actual case. In vv. 9 - 10 the 
writer simply develops this idea of iraiSeta, comparing the 
human and the divine methods. Hence eu-a cannot mean here 
"further" (deinde) ; it is "besides," in the sense that it brings 
out another element in the conception. 

EItu might be taken interrogatively (=itane or siccine), to introduce 
an animated question (as often in Plato, e.g. Leges, 964^, Theat. 20-jd, 
Sophist. 222b), though we should expect a Zi in the second clause here or a 
K<xi before ov iroXv jxaXXov. Kypke suggests that dra = el 5^ (quod si) as, 
e.g., in Jos. B.J. iii. 8. 5, dr hv /lev dtpaviay rts avdpuirov irapaKarad-qK-tju, 
7) Siddrirai. tcaicws. 

nai&€urr)s only occurs once in the LXX, and there as a de 
SCription of God (Hos 5 2 eyw Be 7rai8evT?)9 v/jlwv) ; in 4 Mac 9 6 
(6 Trai&€vrr]<; yipuv) it is applied to a man, as in Ro 2 20 . Kal 
cvcTpe-n-ojjieGa (" reverebamur," vg), we submitted respectfully to 
them (the object of the verb being iron-epas), as in Mt 21 37 , not, 
we amended our ways (as in LXX, e.g. 2 Ch 7 14 and Philo's 
quaest. in Gen. 4 9 to p.77 ap.apTa.veLv /xrjSiv to 7rapap.eyicrT0v dyadov' 
to ap.aprdvovTa IvTpairrjvai o~vyy£v*.<i ckciVov). In ou iroXu p.aXXoi', 
the more common iroXXw is read by D c K L, and after 7roAv a 
few authorities (p 13 K c D* 1739 Origen) supply the Se which is 
strictly required after the preceding p.ev. The description of 
God as tw iron-pi tuc Trvzup&Twv is unexpected. In the vocabulary 
of Hellenistic Judaism God is called 6 twv irvevp.a.T(av Kal 7rao-^s 
e£ouo-i'as 8wa'o-T7?s (2 Mac 3 24 ), and " Lord of spirits "' is a favourite 
Enochic title; but "spirits" here cannot mean angels (cp. Nu 
16 22 ). The contrast between tous i-fjs o-apKos iraTe'pas and tw 
iraTpl twv Trkeup.dTWf denotes God as the author of man's spiritual 
being ; the expression is quite intelligible as a statement of 
practical religion, and is only rendered ambiguous when we read 
into it later ideas about traducianism and creationism, which 
were not in the writer's mind. Shall we not submit to Him, the 
writer asks, Kal j^o-op-cc (cp. io 38 ^aerai) ? " Monemur hoc verbo 
nihil esse nobis magis exitiale quam si nos in Dei obsequium 
tradere recusemus" (Calvin). In v. 10 the assumption that the 
readers were mature men (etxopef, v. 9 ) is made explicit by irpos 
oXiyas Tjpe'p 01 * (till we became men). Ilpds here, as in Wis 16 6 
(tis vovOeaiav 8e 7rpos o\iyov irapd^Orjo-av) etc., means duration ; 
it is not final, as if the parental discipline were with a view to 
the short, earthly life alone. Kcrrd to Bokou^ outois (as they 
chose) refers to the arbitrariness of the patria potestas. " Parents 
may err, but he is wise," as the Scottish metrical paraphrase 
puts it. 

The writer has in mind the familiar patria potestas of the Romans, as in 
Terence's Heauton Timoroumenos (100: "vi et via pervolgata patrum"; 


204-207: " parentum iniuriae unius modi sunt ferme . . . atque haec sunt 
tamen ad virtutem omnia"), where one father is confessing to another how he 
had mishandled his boy (99 f. : " ubi rem rescivi, coepi non humanitus neque 
ut animum decuit aegrotum adulescentuli tractare "). Compare the remark 
of the Persian officer in Xenophon's Cyropaedia (ii. 2. 14), who argued that a 
man who set himself to make people laugh did less for them than a man who 
made them weep, and instanced fathers — K\av/xatn p.iv ye Kal Trare'pes i/io?s 
<Tw<ppocruvT]v iirixo-vdivTai.. This is wholesome correction. But it was not 
always so. " Qur postremo filio suscenseam, patres ut faciunt ceteri?" old 
Demaenetus asks, in the Asinaria (49) of Plautus. Ovid's " durus pater" 
(Amores, i. 15. 17) was more than a tradition of literature. Pliny tells us, 
for example, that he had once to remonstrate with a man who was thrashing 
his son for wasting money on horses and dogs (Epp. ix. 12): "haec tibi 
admonitus immodicae seueritatis exemplo pro amore mutuo scripsi, ne 
quando tu quoque filium tuum acerbius duriusque tractares." There is also 
the story told by Aelian ( Var. Hist. ix. 33) about the youth who, when asked 
by his father what he had learned from Zeno, was thrashed for failing to 
show anything definite, and then calmly replied that he had learned stoically 
to put up with a father's bad temper (£</>tj /xefxadijKivai <pepeiv 6pyi]v warip^v 
Kal yurj ayavaKTeiv). Sons, says Dio Chrysostom (xv. 240 M), rptcpovrai 
iravres vtt6 tGiv iraripuiv Kal iraiovrai TrdWaKis vrr atiruiv. The general point 
of view is put by Epictetus {Enchiridion, 30, warr/p ierriv' inr ay opeijerai 
e'iri[j.e\e?<jdai, ivapax^pelv awavrwv, dp^x e<r ^ aL XoiSopodvros, iralovros), and the 
connexion of "life" with iraidda in Pr 4 13 iiriXapov ^/xtjs iraiSeias, yu?j d<prjs, 
dXXa (pvKa^ov avrrjv creavTip els £wf)v aov : Pr 6 23 Xvxvos ivroXJi vd/xov Kal <pws, 
Kal odbs fwijs Kal ZXeyxos Kal iraidela, and Sir 4 17f \ 

Now for the contrast. c 8e (God ; sc. TmiScvei rjfxas) em to 
<7U(i4>Epoi' (cp. 1 Co I2 7 ; Ep. Arist. 125, a-v/j./3ov\ev6vT(i}v 7rpos 
to avfufaepov tu)v <£tAwv), which is explained in els to (ieTaXa(3€i»' 
(cp. 6 7 ) tt]s dyioTr|Tos auTou. 'AyioTrjs is a rare term, which 
begins to appear late in Hellenistic Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 15 2 tou 
7ravTa i(popu>vTO<; fieO" dytoT^TOS : Test. Levi 3 4 {i7repav(o Traarjs 
ayioTr)To<;), and, except as a v. I. in 2 Co i 12 , occurs nowhere else 
in the NT. Here it denotes the divine life, to share in which is 
the outcome of 6 dyiaapos ou x^P^s ouSels Sv|;eTai {i.e. have a 
direct experience of) rbv Ku'pioy (v. 14 ). The writer, in this contrast, 
is simply arguing that the divine education, which involves some 
suffering, as all Traihda. does, is more worthy of obedience from 
mature people than even the parental discipline to which, for all 
its faults ot temper, they submitted during childhood. The say- 
ings of Isokrates, that while the roots of 7ra«.8eia were bitter, its 
fruits were sweet, was a commonplace of ancient morals ; the 
writer is going to develop it in a moment. Meantime he alludes 
to the equally well-known truth that 7rai8eia might involve severe 
physical treatment. 

Two examples may be added of this doctrine that education involves a 
discipline which sometimes requires the infliction of pain. Maximus of Tyre 
(Diss. iv. 7), in arguing that the desire to give pleasure is by no means an in- 
variable proof of true affection, asks : <pi\ou<riv 5t irov Kal iraidas iraripes Kal 
8i8&crKa\oi /j.adTjT&f Kal tI av etrj dviapdrepov ■}) iraidl irarrip Kal /xadrirfj 5i8a<r- 
KaXos ; so Philo argues in de Migrat. Abrah. 20, au<ppovi<TTQ)v u>s loiKe tovt6 


iari rb £dos, iraiSaywyCov, SiSacrKaXuiv, yoviuiv, irpeafivTtpwv, apx^vruiv, v6p.wV 
oveiSlfovres yap, Am 5' Sttov Kal /coXdjoires enaaroi tovtuu dpeivovs rds \pv%ai 
arrepyd^ovTat tHov TraidevopL^vwv. /cat {x@P°s V-^v ovoeh ovdeui, <pl\oi 5e iracrt 
irdvTes. In de parent, col. 4, he explains, 5id tout' e'feori tois irarpdcn Kal 
KaTrjyopelv irpbs roiis iratSas Kal ififipidiorepov vovderelv Kal, el p.r) reus 01 aKoQv 
direiXais virelKovai, rinrreiv Kal Trpoir-qXaKlfeiv Kal Karadelv. 

In v. 11 the writer sums up what he has been saying since v. 6 . 
Discipline or ircuSeia irpos to irapoV (a classical Greek phrase = for 

the moment, e.g. ThuC ii. 2 2, opwv avrov<; 7rpos to irapbv xaXz-rrai- 
vovTas) ou (7ras . . . oi = absolute negative, not any) SokcI (to 
human feelings and judgment) x a P&s el^ai dXXa, Xutttjs (to be a 
matter of, dvai with gen. as in io 39 ). 

na<ra ptv (n* P 33. 93) and irao-a 8c (p is n<= A D° H K L + 6. 326. 929. 
1288. 1836 vg syr boh Chrys. etc.) practically mean the same thing, for the 
p.4v is concessive ( " of course " ) and 5e is metabatic. But probably it was the 
awkwardness of the double pAv that led to the alteration of this one. The other 
readings, ira<ra -yap (Cosm. (221 C) Jer. Aug. ) and iracra (D* 104. 460. 917 arm 
eth Orig. Cosm. (376 D)) are obviously inferior attempts to clear up the passage. 

" Yorepoi' Be" (cp. Pr 5 3 - 4 (of the harlot) r) irpo? Katpbv Xnraivu 
aov tpapvyya' vvrepov fxevroi iriKpoTtpov \oXrjs (.vpTjcreis), but later 
on discipline yields fruit; it is not a stone flung down arbitrarily 
on human life, but a seed. By Kap-nw etpYjnKoc Sikcuoowtjs the 
writer means fruit (/cap7ros as often = result or outcome), which 
consists in (genit. of apposition) StKatoo-uV^ (as in n 7 a generic 
term for the good life as a religious relationship to God). But 
why eiprpiicoV? Possibly in contrast to the restiveness and pain 
(Xu'irns) of the period of discipline, when people are being trained 
(yeyup-cao-fieVois) ; when the discipline does its perfect work, 
there is no friction between the soul and God. But there is also 
the suggestion of "saving" or "blissful." Philo quotes Pr 
3 n - 12 (see above on v. 5 ) as a saying of Solomon the peaceful 
(elprjVLKos) ; the significance of this he finds in the thought that 
subjection and obedience are really a wholesome state for people 
who are inclined to be self-assertive, uncontrolled, and quarrel- 
some. He thinks that Noah is rightly called by a name denoting 
rest, since peTtacnv rjpepalov 8e Kal rjav^a^ovra Kal araOepov eYi 8e 
Kal elp-qviKOV (3lov 01 Ka\oKaya9iav tcti/avjkotcs {Abrah. 5). To 

take tlp-qviKov in some such sense (salutaris) would yield a good 
interpretation ; and this is confirmed by the similar use of elpr/vrj 
in v. 14 and of the adjective in 3 Mac 6 32 , where the Jews, in the 
ecstasy of their relief, ^opov? crvvtaTavTO (icppoavvr]<s elpr)VLKr}<; 
o-rjpcLov. Those who stand their training reap a safe, sound life 
at last. In its social aspect, dprjviKov could only refer to the 
brotherly love of the community ; the writer might be throwing 
out a hint to his readers, that suffering was apt to render people 
irritable, impatient with one another's faults. The later record 
even of the martyrs, for example, shows that the very prospect of 


death did not always prevent Christians from quarrelling in 
prison. This may be the meaning of dp-qviKov in Ja 3 18 , but it is 
out of keeping with the present context. 

A close parallel to v. 11 is the saying of Aristotle (see above, for the similar 
remark of Isokrates), quoted by Diog. Laertius (v. 1. 18) : rrjs iraidelas £</>?/ 
ras fitv p/faj etvai irinpas, y\vKe2s 5e tovs napirovs. In Epist. Arist. 232, 
rovs yap air' avrrjs (i.e. 5a<aiocrvvr)s) d\virlav KaTacrKev&feiv, though the dXvirla 
here is freedom from misfortune. Clem. Alex. (Strom, vii. 10. 56), after 
speaking of the time when we are delivered from the chastisements and 
punishments as iK rQv dyuaprTj/ndrajv els iraidelav inro/nivo/xev Gwrqpiov [He 
I2 7 ], adds : fxed' f/v airokirrpuaiv rb ytpas /ecu at ri/xal TeXetcoOelaiv &tto8L5ovt<h 
. . . Kal deol Ti)v TrpoaTjyopiav k{k\t]vtcu ol (rvvdpovoi tQiv &Wwv de&v, rCiv iiirb 
rip <ro)Trjpi irpJxrwv TeT&y/mevwv, yfVTj<70fj.evoL. 

The writer now resumes the imperative tone (vv. 12f -), with a 
blend of counsel and warning. The discipline of trouble is 
viewed under an active aspect ; men must co-operate with God, 
exerting themselves to avoid sin (v. 1 ) by the exercise of personal 
zeal and church-discipline. Otherwise, the results may be fatal. 
The exhortation broadens out here, resuming the tone and range 
of io 25t . 

12 So (5i<5 as in 6 1 ) " up with your listless hands ! Strengthen your weak 
knees !" 13 And " make straight paths for your feet" to walk in. You must 
not let the lame get dislocated, but rather make them whole. 14 Aim at peace 
with all — at that consecration without which no one will ever see the Lord ; 15 see 
to it that no one misses the grace of God, ' ' that no root of bitterness grows up 
to be a trouble" by contaminating all the rest of you ; 16 that no one turns to 
sexual vice or to a profane HJe as Esau did — Esau who for a single meal 
" parted with his birthright." 17 You know how later on, when he wanted to 
obtain his inheritance of blessing, he was set aside ; he got no chance to repent, 
though he tried for it with tears. 

For the first time, since the hints in 3 12 4 1 and 6 11 , the writer 
alludes to differences of attainment in the little community. 
Hitherto he has treated them as a solid whole. But the possi- 
bility of individual members giving way has been voiced in io 29 , 
and now the writer ( 13b ) widens his appeal ; his readers are to 
maintain their faith not only for their own sakes but for the sake 
of those who at their side are in special danger of collapsing. 
The courage of their uirofiovf) is more than a personal duty ; they 
are responsible for their fellow-members, and this involves the 
duty of inspiriting others by their own unswerving, unflagging 
faith. The admonition, as in i3 lf -, is addressed to the whole 
community, not to their leaders. The general aim of vv. 12 - 13 is 
to produce the character praised by Matihew Arnold in his lines 
on Rugby Chapel : 

" Ye move through the ranks, recall 
The stragglers, refresh the out-worn . . . 
Ye fill up the gaps in our files, 
Strengthen the wavering line, 


Stablish, continue our march, 
On, to the bound of the waste, 
On, to the City of God." 

He begins in v. 12 by using scriptural language borrowed freely 
from Is 35 3 (tcr^vo-arc, X £ 'P £S aveipevai /ecu yovara TrapaXeXvp.eva), 
but in a form already current in Sir 25 s2 (x«'P«? irapeifievai Kal 

■yoVaTO. vapaXeXv/xeva), and also from Pr 4 26 (6p6as Tpo^ias ttoul 

Tots iroo-iv). This metaphorical language for collapsing in listless 
despair is common, e.g., in Sir 2 12 where x € 'P es ira/>«f*«'at is 
bracketed with " cowardly hearts," in Philo's description of the 
Israelites who longed to return to Egypt, ol p.ev yap irpoKap.6vTes 

dviirecrov, fiapvv avrtiraXov rjyrjcrdpei'OL tov ttovov, kcu tus )({ipas wr 
ao-Ocvcias uxnrep aTreip-qKores dOX-qral KaflrJKUV (de Congressu Erud. 

29, cp. He 11 15 ), and especially in the description of moral 
encouragement in Job 4 3 - 4 el yap o~v evov^eV^cras iroXXovs, Kal 
veTpas ao~8evovs TrapeKaXeaas, aaBtvovvTas tc i£av€o~Tr]cra<i prjfiaaiv, 
yovaariv re aSwarovaiv 6dpo~o<; mptedrjKtvi. In Dt 32 36 TrapaXeXv- 
pevovs is parallel to Trapeip-evovs, and in Zeph 3 16 the appeal 
is fidpaet. . . . p.T) Trapeio-Oioaav al X € 'P e ' s o~ov. 1 Ayop0cicraT€ 
(literally = straighten, renew) goes with ycVciTa better than with 
Xeipas, but the sense is plain. In v. 13 , if iroiTJo-ciTe is read in the 
first clause, Kal rpoxias 6p0as iroiTJo-aTe tois iroow up,wc is a hexa- 
meter (p. lvii). By to x^Xof the writer means " those who are 
lame," these crippled souls in your company. 

Probably the Trotetre of K* P 33. 917. 1831 (Orig. ) has been conformed, in 
TroirjiraTe (n'ADHKL, etc., Chrys. ), to the preceding ivopdwaaTe (so, e.%., 
B. Weiss, in Texte u. Untersuch. xiv. 3. 4, 9, who declares that the older 
codices never yield any case of an original aor. being changed into a present), 
though some edd. {e.g. von Soden) regard iroirjaaTe as the original text and 
irouire as having been conformed to LXX (cp. Mt 3 3 ). 

As laGfj 8e udWoe shows, iia-pairfj here has its medical sense 
(e.g. Hippol. de offic. med. 14, ws p.vpe dva/<AaTcu p-qre ixrpe- 
■jr-qTai), not the common sense of being " turned aside " (as, e.g., 
in Philo, Quaest. in Exod. 23 20 ol d<piAdKTcos oSoLiropovvres 
8tap.apTavovcrLV t^s 6p6rj<; kcu Xetotpopou a>s ttoX\oiki<; ets avooias kcu 
SvcrfSdrov; Kal rpayeias aTpairovs eKTp67T€crpai' to TrapairXrjo~iov iunv 
ore Kal al ifruval twv vecav TrcuStias dp.oipovatv, and in M. Aurel. i. 7, 
Kal to p.r] iKTpairTJvat els £77X01/ crotpiariKov). In Od. Sol 6 14f - the 
ministers of the divine grace are praised in similar terms for 
their service to weaker Christians : 

"They have assuaged the dry lips, 
And the will that had fainted they have raised up : . . . 
And limbs that had fallen 
They have straightened and set up." 

1 Clem. Horn. xii. 18, ai X 6 'P es virb Sijy/xaTuv irapeidriaav. 


But here it is the members as a whole who are addressed, and 
Tpox- opOas it. t. irocni> ojiwi' means " keep straight " (ttoctlv, dative = 
" for your feet") — it is the only way to help your fellow-members 
who have weakened themselves. Keep up the tone of your 
community, move in the right direction, to prevent any of your 
number from wavering and wandering. The straight path is the 
smooth path, it is implied ; if any limping soul is allowed to 
stray from the straight course, under the influence of a bad 
example, he will be made worse instead of better. The admoni- 
tion in Test. Sim. 5 2 - 3 is interesting, as it suggests the train of 
thought here between vv. 12f - and 16f - : 

ayaOvvare ras KapSias ifx-uiv cvawriov K-vpcov 

Kal evOvvare Tas 68ovs vp.wv ivwiriov tujv avupuwuiv 

kcu eaecrOe cvpto-KOvres X°-P tv wuttiov Kvpiov Kal avOpwirwv. 

<pv\d£aa6e ovv cnro ttJs 7ropvetas, 

OTt 7} TTOpViia p.y]TT\p i<TTi T&V KdKWV, 

X<Dp[(ovcra airo tov 8eov Kal irpocrzyyi^ovcra tw BeXtap. 

The author of ripos 'Eppcuous knows that the difficulties in the way 
of faith are more than mere despair. In I2 1 " 11 he has been 
dealing with the need of cheerful courage under the strain of 
life ; this leads to the appeal of v. 12 . But while there is nothing 
so infectious as cowardice or despair, he rapidly passes on, 
in vv. 13f - (/ecu kt\.), to warn his readers against some specific 
temptations in the moral life. He continues, in a third impera- 
tive (v. 14 ), f\pi\n\v SiwKCTe (an OT phrase, i P 3 11 ) jictA ir&rntv. 
Here ue-ra goes with SicWe in the sense of " along with " (as in 
11 9 13 23 , for our author avoids <rvv), and irdvTwv means " all the 
(other) aytot" (as in 13 24 ). The call is to make common cause 
with all the rest of the Christians in the quest for God's dpr/vr}, 
i.e. (see above on v. 11 ) the bliss and security of a life under God's 
control. It is dprjv-q in a sense corresponding to the older sense 
of felicity and prosperity on the ground of some (messianic) 
victory of God, practically as in Lk i 79 19 38 the Christian 
salvation ; only this comprehensive sense does justice to the 
term here and in 13 20 . Hence the following /cat is almost = 
" even." 

ElpiivTi in a similar sense occurs repeatedly in the context of the passage 
already quoted from Proverbs : e.g. 3** 2 vli, ipwv vofilfiuv /xtj^ iirCKauddvov, 
tc\ 6£ prj/juiTa fiov TT/pe/rw err] icapdicf ht)kos yap filov Kal £tt/ fw^j Kal elprjvrjv 
TrpoaOr)covcrlv croi . . . 3 9 dirdpxov avTif ant) crOiv K apirCov SiKaiocrvvr)i . . . 
3 16 - 17 iK tov crT6/iaTos atiTTJs iKwopeverai SiKaiocrvvrj Kal irdvTes ol Tplftoi avTrjs 
iv elpdvQ . . . 3 23 iVa Tropevri Trewoid&s 4v elpr)i>ri irdaas rds oSovs crov. After 
Pr 4'-' 6 ~(as quoted above) there follows the promise, aurc-s 5t Tas 6p0as Troifjcrei 
ras rpoxi-o.% crov, ras 5£ 7rope/as crov iv elprjvri irpodi-ei. 

The conventional interpretation takes etp^VT|V with pexa irdivTuv {i.e. all 

XII. 14, 15 ] A WARNING 209 

your members). This yields a fair sense, for a quarrelsome church is a real 
hindrance to effective faith ; the quarrelsomeness here would be due to the 
presence of faulty persons, whose lapses were apt to be irritating, and what 
would break eiprjVTj (i.e. mutual harmony) in such cases is the spirit of harsh- 
ness in dealing with faults, censoriousness, or aloofness, just as what makes 
for dp-f)VT) is a concern for purity and goodness inspired by forbearance and 
patience. But all this is read into the text. There is no hint of such dangers 
elsewhere in Ilpds ' E/Jpatovs as there is in 1 P 3 8 '- and Ro I2 16 '-. Our author 
is characteristically putting a new edge on an old phrase like didiKere dpr)vr)v. 

What elprjvrj specially involved is shown in kcu tcW dyiaau6f 
ktX. Here dyiaau<5s is not to be identified with o-w<J>po<7uVr] in the 
special sense of 13 4 ; it is the larger "consecration" to God 
which all Syioi must maintain. In fact, Siwkctc t6c dyi.aap.6v ktA. 
is simply another description of the experience called " sharing 
in God's dyio-rTjs " (v. 10 ). Xwpis generally precedes, here it follows, 
the word it governs (o5), either for the sake of the rhythm or to 
avoid a hiatus (ou ouSeis). "To see the Lord," is an expression 
common in Philo for that vision of the Divine being which is 
the rare reward of those who can purify themselves from the 
sensuous (cp. H. A. A. Kennedy's Philo 1 s Contribution to Religion, 
pp. 192 f.). Ku'pios is God in vv. 8 and 6 ; here, in view of o 28 , it 
might be Jesus (as 2 3 ), though " to see God " (vg " deum ") as a 
term for intimate personal fellowship is more adequate to the 
context. People must be on the alert against tendencies to in- 
fringe this dyiaap.6s (v. 15 ) ; emaicoTrourrcs, one form and function of 
irapaKaXooi'Tes (io 25 ), introduces three clauses, beginning each with 
p.rj tis, though it is not clear whether the third (v. 16 ) is intended 
as an example of fiiavQCxriv or as a further definition of the 
second p.rj tis (jn£a ktA..). The first clause, p.r\ tis ucrrepiov (sc. 77) 
diTo ttjs x^P lT °5 T0 " 0€ou, shows uaTepeiK (4 1 ) with diro as in 
Eccles 6 2 varrepujv . . . dirb ttoVtos ov iiti9vp.rjcre.L (Sir 7 s4 p.i) varepn 
d-n-b KAaicWoov has a different sense). In writing d-n-b tt}s x"P tT0S 
toS deov the writer may have had already in mind the words of 

Dt 29 18 (p.7] Tts eoTiv €V vplv . . . TiVos rj Bidvoia Z$ei<\lV£V aTTO 

Kvpiov tov 0€ov f)p.£>v), which he is about to quote in the next clause. 

The rhetorical tone comes out in the two iambic trimeters oD x w P^ ou8els 
&\J/eTat rbv Kvpiov and 4Trt<XKowovuTes fir] tls vcrTepQiv dir6. 

The next clause, fir) tis pi£a -iriicpias dew 4>uouaa eyoxXrj, is a 
reminiscence of the warning against idolatry and apostasy in Dt 
29 18 , which A (as well as F*) preserves in this form, pnq tls io-nv 
ev vplv pt-^a TTLKpias avio (pvovaa ivo)(Xrj (so B* : iv X°^-V ^) K< * L 
iriKpia (B* : /cat iriKpia B). The form is ungrammatical, for i<mv 
is superfluous, as is icai mKpia. On the other hand, the text of B 
yields no good sense, for a root can hardly be said to grow up iv 
XoXf), and kcu iriKpia is left stranded ; the alteration of TriKpia 
in B* does not help matters, for it is not preceded by iv x°^V. 



Plainly the writer found something like the words of A in his 
text of the LXX ; he may have omitted «mv and ko.1 iriKpia. 
The confusion between -ox^V and x ^? 1S intelligible, as SxAos 
and x°Aos are confused elsewhere (Blass reads iv X°^-V here, 
which requires $ or eorw to be supplied). 'EyoxXfl is the present 
subjunctive of ivoyXeiv, which is used in i Es 2 19 (evoxAovo-a) 
and 2 24 (eVox^o-at) of rebellion disturbing and troubling the 
realm. As a general term for " troubling " or " vexing," it is 
common both in classical Greek and in the papyri, either 
absolutely or with an accusative, as, e.g., Polystr. Epicur. (ed. 
C. Wilke) Sb. 4, ov8' v<p' evos tovtwv ivox^f]o-ap,€vovs ^f-Ss, the 
edict of M. Sempronius Liberalis (Aug. 29, 154 a.d.) : iv 177 
OLKeta rfj yeo>[py]ia TrpoaKaprepovcn fxr] ei'ox-Vttv (BGU. ii. 372), 
and Aristoph. Frogs, 709 f., ov 7ro\vv ovS' 6 ttiO]ko<; ouros 6 vvv 
ivox^uv. As for pi'£a (of a person, as, e.g., in 1 Mac i 10 ko.1 
i£rj\6ev i£ avrwv pi£a d/mprwAos 'Avtio^os 'Ein^avT;?) micpias 
(genitive of quality), the meaning is a poisonous character and 
influence (cp. Ac 8 23 ). The warning in Deuteronomy is against 
any pernicious creature in the community, who by cool insolence 
and infidelity draws down the divine sentence of extermination 
upon himself and his fellows. Here the writer thinks of people 
who consider that immediate gratification of their wishes is 
worth more than any higher end in life ; they value their spiritual 
position as sons (vv. 5f ) so little, that they let it go in order to 
relapse on some material relief at the moment. Such a nature 
is essentially fie(3r]\o<;, devoid of any appreciation of God's 
privileges, and regarding these as of no more importance than 
sensuous pleasures of the hour. Under the bad influence of this 
(81a TauTTjs, NDKL*326, etc., as in 13 2 : Sid aur^s, A H P 33. 
424* syr hkl boh Clem, etc., as in n 4 12 11 ), all the rest (ot ttoXXoi, 
after one has been mentioned, as in Ro 5 15 etc.) may be tainted 
(p.iai'Gwo-i), and so (cp. on io 22 ) rendered incapable of o<J>€<r0cn rbv 

The third clause (v. 16 ) is fx^ tis (sc. tj) iropyos r\ Pe'PrjXos (for 
the collocation see Philo, de Sacerdot. 8, nopvy kol ftefirjXu aw/xa 
teal ^vxqv, and for this transferred sense of ft. ( = Lat. profanus) 
see Jebb-Pearson's Fragments of Soph. ii. 208) ; ftiftt]ko% is 
only once applied to a person in the LXX, viz. in Ezk 21 25 <rv 
(3eftrj\e avo/xe ( = ^n), then to people like Antiochus (3 Mac 
2 2. H) or ^ Mac 7 15 tous fiefirjXow; x u P wcr ° i l Ji€l ' 01 ) recreant Jews. 
In adding w$ 'HaaG kt\. the writer chooses the story of Esau, in 
Gn 2 5 28-34 2 7 1 * 39 , to illustrate the disastrous results of yielding 
to the dpapn'a of which he had spoken in v. 1 . There can be no 
uiropok'TJ, he implies, without a resolute determination to resist 
the immediate pleasures and passions of the hour. As Cicero 
puts it in the De Finibus, i. 14, " plerique, quod tenere atque 

XII. 16,17.] THE SIN OF ESAU 211 

servare id quod ipsi statuerunt non possunt, victi et debilitati 
objecta specie voluptatis tradunt se libidinibus constringendos 
nee quid eventurum sit provident, ob eamque causam propter 
voluptatem et parvam et non necessariam et quae vel aliter 
pararetur et qua etiam carere possent sine dolore, turn in morbos 
graves, turn in danina, turn in dedecora incurrunt." But why 
choose Esau? Probably owing to rabbinic tradition, in which 
Esau is the typical instance of the godless who grow up among 
good people (Isaac and Rebekah) and yet do not follow their 
deeds, as Obadiah is of the good who grow up among the wicked 
(Ahab and Jezebel) and do not follow their deeds (Sifre 133 on 
Nu 27 1 ). The rabbinic tradition 1 that Esau was sensual, is 
voiced as early as Philo, in the de Nobilitate, 4 (6 Si (xu&v 

d7r€i#T/S £k t(ov yaaTpbs ko.1 twv uerd yaoTe'pa. r}8ovw\> d/cparaJs l^wv, 
i<p' u>v avtireicxOr) Kai Trpecr/3uo)v £$io-tolo~6oll t<S fxer avrov /cat 
ueravoeiv ei8v<; i(f>' ots £$€o~tt] Kai <povav Kara, tov dSeAcpou Kai prj&tv 
trepov 77 St' <Dv Xvtt^(T€l tov? yoveis TrpaypaTivearOai), where Philo 
interprets the (iexdcoia of Esau as simply regret for a bad bargain. 
Our author may have considered Esau a iropi'09 literally — and in 
any case the word is to be taken literally (as in 13 4 ), not in its 
OT metaphorical sense 2 of " unfaithful " — but the weight of the 
warning falls on ^e/37/A.o?, as is clear from the phrase drri {3pwaews 
pias (cp. Gn 25 28 17 Brjpa. avrov /Jpakris avTw). T. H. Green 
(Prolegomena to Ethics, § 96) points out that hunger was not the 
motive. " If the action were determined directly by the hunger, 
it would have no moral character, any more than have actions 
done in sleep, or strictly under compulsion, or from accident, or 
(so far as we know) the action of animals. Since, however, it is 
not the hunger as a natural force, but his own conception of 
himself, as finding for the time his greatest good in the satis- 
faction of hunger, that determines the act, Esau recognizes 
himself as the author of the act. ... If evil follows from it, 
whether in the shape of punishment inflicted by a superior, or 
of calamity ensuing in the course of nature to himself or those in 
whom he is interested, he is aware that he himself has brought 
it on himself." The pvtas is emphatic : " id culpam auget, non 
misericordiam meretur" (Bengel). 

In the quotation from Gn 25 s3 (d7r^5oTo 5£ 'H<rai> t<x Trpwroro/ceta r<jj 
'Icucw/3), airiStTo (A C 623), as if from a form airoSiSw (cp. Helbing, 105), is 
preferred by Lachmann, B. Weiss, WH. 

The warning is now (v. 17 ) driven home, "lore, indicative here 
(a literary Atticism, though Blass insists that it is chosen for the 

1 Jub 25 1, 8 (Esau tempting Jacob to take one of his own two sensual 

2 IlopveLa. has this sense, and so has the verb (e.g. Ps 73 s7 ii-uikidpevaai 
ir&VTa rbv Tropvivovra airb <xov). 


sake of the rhythm, to assimilate lore y<*P ° Tt Kai ^(Te'ireiTa) to 
the closing words of the preceding sentence), recalls to the 
readers the scripture story with which they were so familiar. 
"lore on Kal (another item in his story) fieTe'ireiTa OeXup KX-npoyo- 
pfjcrai (i P 3 9 ) tt]v euXoyiav ( = 7rpu)TOTO/aa as in I Ch 5 1, 2 ) 
dTT€8oKifjidCT0Tj (Jer 6 a0 d7reSo/ci/Aao-ev aurovs Kvpios : Ign. Rom. 8 3 
iav uiroSoKi/jLacrOu)). 'AiTo8oKtfx,(i^ea8ai is common in the Greek 
orators for officials being disqualified, but the rejection here is 
an act of God ; Esau is a tragic instance of those who cannot 
get a second chance of /actoVoici (6 6 ). The writer has again the 
sombre, serious outlook which characterizes a passage like 6 4 " 8 . 
The very metaphor of plant-growth occurs here as there, and 
aire&oKi/xdo-dr) recalls dSo/ayaos. Merdvoia is impossible for certain 
wilful sins ; certain acts of deliberate choice are irrevocable and 
fatal. Why this was so, in Esau's case, is now explained; 
fieTciyoias y^P totto^ oi\ eupe (evptaKw = obtain, with ck^tciv as 
often in LXX, e.g. Dt 4 29 ), Kai'-n-ep p-e-ra SaKpiW (emphatic by 
position) £K£T]Tr)aas air-qv (i.e. fxtTavoiav. " MeTavotas toVos is, in 
fact, fxeTdvoia. . . . When /act. tottov is taken up again, the mere 
secondary toVos disappears, and it is avr-qv, not airov, agreeing 
with the great thing really sought," Alford). If the writer used 
his usual A text of the LXX, he would not have found any 
allusion to the tears of Esau in Gn 27 s8 , but the tears were 
retained, from the Hebrew, in Jub 26 s3 , in other texts of the 

LXX, and in JosephuS (Ant. i. 18. 7, 7re'v#os f;yev i-rrl rfj Sia^apTta. 
Kai avTov Tots 8d«pvcriv dx^o'/tevos 6 irarrip ktA.). 1 " Those tears 

of Esau, the sensuous, wild, impulsive man, almost like the cry 
of some • trapped creature,' are among the most pathetic in the 
Bible" (A. B. Davidson). AuTrp refers to p.€Tawoias, not to 
euXoyias (which would require p.eTayoias • . . cupec to be taken 
as a parenthesis, a construction which is wrecked on the anti- 
thesis between eupev and eK^Trjoras). The peTdfoia is not a 
change in the mind of Isaac, which would require some additional 
words like tou iraTpos. Besides, Esau does not beseech Isaac to 
alter his mind. Nor can it refer to a change in God's mind. It 
is "a change of mind" on Esau's part, "undoing the effects of 
a former state of mind" (A. B. Davidson). Bitterly as Esau 
regretted his hasty action, he was denied any chance of having 
its consequences reversed by a subsequent /x.€Tavoia ; this is the 
writer's meaning. 'ASvvarov 7rdAiv avaKaivi&iv eis fieTa.voi.av IS the 
law of God for such wilful offenders, and to try for a second 
(jLerdvoia is vain. Such is the warning that our author deduces 
from the tale of Esau. 

1 There is a striking parallel in De Mercede Conductis, 42, where 
Lucian describes an old man being met by 17 fitrdvoia 5a.Kpvov<ra is oiidtv 

XII. 17.] THE SIN OF ESAU 21 3 

This inexorable view agrees with Philo's idea [Leg. Alleg. iii. 75, woWals 
yap \j/vx<us peravota xp7?<r0at povXrjdeicais ovk iirerpeipev 6 6e6s) that some, 
like Cain ' (quod deter, pot. 26, rip hk p.i\ Sexo^vip f-era.voi.av Kalv fit' 
virep^oXijv (Lyovs), are too bad to repent, though Philo illustrates it here not 
from Esau, but from Lot's wife. In de Spec. Leg. ii. 5 he declares that 
luxurious spendthrifts are bvaKadaproi Kal dvo-laroi, ws p-rjSt 6e<p rip rrpi Qvaiv 
IXeip eiiyyvw/xris a^iovcdai. In Jub 35'* Isaac tells Rehekah that " neither Esau 
nor his seed is to be saved." But the idea of Ilpds 'Eppalovs is made still more 
clear by the use of fitTavotas r6trov as an expression for opportunity or 
chance to repent. This is a contemporary Jewish phrase ; cp. Apoc. Bar 
85 12 ("For when the Most High will bring to pass all these things, there will 
not then be an opportunity for returning . . . nor place of repentance"), 
4 Es 9 12 ("while a place of repentance was still open to them, they paid 
no heed"), which goes back to Wis 12 10 Kplvuv 5t Kara fipaxv idLSovs riwov 
p.eravoias (of God punishing the Canaanites). It is linguistically a Latinism, 2 
which recurs in Clem. Rom. J 6 (iv yeve$ /cat yevtq. p.eravotas rdirov Zduicev 
6 5eo~ir6TT]5 rots f$ov\op.tvois tirio~rpa(pr)vai tir avrbv) and Tatian (Orat. ad 
Graecos, 15, 5t& tovto yovv 7) ruiv daipdvwv vTrbo-raats ovk ^x €l pieTavolas 
rdirov). But a special significance attaches to it in 4 Esdras, for example, 
where the writer (e.g. in 7 102f -) rules out any intercession of the saints for the 
ungodly after death, in his desire to show that "the eternal destiny of the 
soul is fixed by the course of the earthly life" (G. H. Box, The Ezra- 
Apocalypse, pp. 154, 155). Here, as in the Slavonic Enoch (S3 1 ), which also 
repudiates such intercession, "we may detect the influence of Alexandrine 
theology, which tended to lay all stress upon the present life as determining 
the eternal fate of every man." The author of Wpbs 'E/Spatous shared this 
belief (cp. 9 27 ) ; for him the present life of man contains possibilities which 
are tragic and decisive. He ignores deliberately any intercession of saints or 
angels for the living or for the dead. But he goes still further, with Philo 
and others, in holding that, for some, certain actions fix their fate beyond any 
remedy. He regards their case as hopeless ; characters like Esau, by an 
act of profane contempt for God, are rejected for ever, a second p-erdvoia being 
beyond their reach. 

The connexion (yap) between the finale (vv. 18-29 ) and what 
precedes lies in the thought that the higher the privilege, the 
higher the responsibility. In Leg. Alleg. iii. i, Philo quotes Gn 
25 27 to prove that virtue's divine city is not meant for human 
passions ; ov yap iri^vKCv rj twv ttolOwv OrjpzvTiKr} /ca/cta rrjv dpeT^s, wickedness banishing men from the presence and sight 
of God. But this line of thought is not in the writer's mind. 
It is more relevant to recall that Esau typifies exclusion from 
God in Jub 15 30 ("Ishmael and his sons and his brothers and 
Esau, the Lord did not cause to approach Him ") ; yet even 
this is not needful to explain the turn of thought. The writer is 
continuing his grave warning. As vv. 14-17 recall the first warning 
of 6 4 - 8 , so he now proceeds to reiterate the second warning of 
I0 26-3i j reminding his readers that they stand in a critical position, 

1 Philo read p.el^oiv r) atria plov rod a<pedrjvai in Gn 4 1S . 

2 Livy, xliv. 10, " poenitentiae relinquens locum " (cp. xxiv. 26, "locus 
poenitendis ") ; cp. Pliny's Epp. x. 97, "ex quo facile est opinari, quae turba 
hominum emendari possit, si sit poenitentiae locus," where the phrase is used 
in quite a different sense, of a chance to give up Christianity. 


in which any indifferences or disobedience to God will prove 
fatal. This is the note of vv. 25 " 29 in particular. But he leads up 
to the appeal by describing in a vivid passage the actual position 
of his readers before God (vv. 18 " 24 ) ; their new status and en- 
vironment appeals even more powerfully and searchingly for an 
unworldly obedience to God than the old status of the People. 

18 You have not come {tTpo<re\i]\vQare) to what you can toitch, to "flames 
of fire" to "mist" and "gloom" and "stormy blasts, 19 to the blare of a 
trumpet and to a Voice " whose words made those who heard it refuse to hear 
another syllable 20 (for they could not bear the command, " If even a beast 
touches the mountain, it must be stoned") — 21 indeed, so awful was the sight 
that Moses said, " / am terrified and aghast. " 22 You have come (irpoac\T)Xv- 
8aT£) to mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to 
myriads of angels in festal gathering, 23 to the assembly of the first-born 
registered in heaven, to the God of all as fudge, to the spirits of just men made 
perfect, ™ to Jesus who mediates (8 8 9 15 ) the new covenant, and to the sprinkled 
blood whose message is nobler than AbePs. 

The passage moves through two phases (vv. 18 " 21 and 22 - 24 ), 
contrasting the revelation at mount Sinai (2 2 io 28 ) with the new 
SiaOrJKr}, the one sensuous, the other spiritual ; the one striking 
terror with its outward circumstances of physical horror, the 
other charged with grace and welcome as well as with awe. The 
meditation and appeal are woven on material drawn from the 
LXX descriptions of the plague of darkness on Egypt (Ex io 21t 
{(/r]\a(f)r]T6v (tkotos . . . cycVero ctkotos yvo^>os BvtXka) and the 
theophany at Sinai (Dt 4 11 7rpoarj\0eT€ ko.1 Io-t^tc vtto to opos* 


<f>wvr] fL€ydXr], and Ex i9 12f - irpoo-€X iT€ caurois tov dva/^vai 6is to 
opos km. Otyelv ti olvtov' 7ras 6 at^apcvos tov opovs tcXcitttjoci 
. . . Iv XLdois \i6o(So\r)6r)o-€Tai 77 fio\(8i KaTaTO^tvdrjartTaC idv tc 
kttJvos lav tc dvOpoyiro'i, ov £,r]o~eTai . . . koI iyivovro <p<ava\ kcu 
dcrrpa7rai /ecu ve<f>€\r] yvo<pw$r]<; iir opous Setvct, <ptovr) t^s crdA.7riyyos 
rjxd V-tya' Kat lirTorjOrj 7ras 6 Aaos 6 iv Trj ■jrap€/x(3oXrj). In V. 18 
the text is difficult and perhaps corrupt. *l>r]\a<j>a)jieVw opei 
would be equivalent to \j/T)\a<pr)Tw opei, a tangible, material 
mountain ; but as opei is a gloss (added, from v. 22 , by D K L 
2 55 syr 11 * 1 arm Athan. Cosm. etc., either before or after if/rjX.), 
though a correct gloss, v\r. may be taken (a) either with irupi, 
(b) or independently. In the former case, (a) two constructions 
are possible, (i) One, as in vg ("ad tractabilem et accensi- 
bilem ignem "), renders " to a fire that was material (or palpable) 
and ablaze " ; (ii) " to what was palpable and ablaze with fire " 
(irvpi in an ablative sense), (i) is a daring expression, and the 
implied contrast (with v. 29 ) is too remote. The objection to (ii) 
is that 7rupt here, as in the OT, goes with the following datives. 
It is on the whole preferable (b) to take i/^AcwpcDpeV^ by itself 


(sc. Tivi). The mountain could not be touched indeed (v. 20 ), but 
it was a tangible object which appealed to the senses. This is 
the point of contrast between it and the Iiwc opos, the present 
participle being equivalent to the verbal adjective xj/rjXatfyqTo^. 
Kypke connects 1/'. with irvpl in the sense of " touched by 
lightning" ("igne tactum et adustum"), comparing the Latin 
phrase " fulmine tactum." But the Greek term is 6Cyyaveiv, and 
in any case this interpretation really requires opei, the mountain 
"sundering" under the lightning touch of God (Ps 144 5 etc.). 

Two conjectures have been proposed, ityei vevapuikiiv^ by G. N. Bennett 
{Classical Review, vi. 263), who argues that this "would fit in exactly with 
the OT accounts, which represent the summit of the mountain as burnt with 
fire, while lower down it was enveloped in a dense cloud " ; and Tre<pe\pa\ar 
nivw (5pe«) by E. C. Selwyn (Journal of Theological Studies, ix. 133, 134) = 
"calcined" (a calcined volcano). Others (e.g. P. Junius) less aptly insert 
ov or fil) before ^Aa^w/LteVy, to harmonize the phrase with v. 20 . 

In the rest of the description, £64>w is a poetical word (cp. 
de Mundo, 400^7, heaven 7ravros £,6<pov kcu Atolktov Kivrj/xaTos kc^w- 
piapevov), which the writer prefers to ctkoYos. Kal OueXXt) — 
OveWrj, a hurricane, is defined by Hesychius as dvip.ov ava-Tpotpr] 
Kal 60/07, V Karaiyts (cp. Horn. Od. 5. 317), and in de Mundo, 395^, 
as 7rv£V/xa fiiaiov Kal acpvu) TrpocraWofievov. In V. 19 r\-^tj (VXV 
'Attlkol' ^xos"EAAt?v£s, Moeris) is a synonym for the LXX <f>u>kfj, 
which the writer intends to use immediately. Philo had already 
used ^X os in ^ e Decalogo, 1 1 : iravra 8' ws cikos to. irepl rbv tottov 
l6avp.aTOvpya.TO, ktvttois (SpovTwv£,oi><DV 77 wotc ^uypeiv 6.Kod<;, 
ao-TpaTrwv Xduif/tcriv avyoeiSeoTdVais, dopdrov o*aA7rtyyos r]XV ""po? 
p.rjKio-Tov a.TTOT€ivovo~rj . . . irvpo<i ovpaviov (popa Ka7rv<5 fiaOtl to. iv 
kvkXo) o-vo-Kia^ovTos. In de Spec. Leg. ii. 22 he explains that the 
<pajvT) craX7rtyyo9 announced to all the world the significance of 
the event. Finally, Kal (Jxoyfj pT)|i,dTwf (the decalogue in Dt 4 12 ), 
■fjs {i.e. the <pwvrj) 01 aicouaarres irapr|Trj<7ayTo utj (pleonastic nega- 
tive as in Gal 5 7 ; hence omitted by K* P 467) irpoaTee^at (the 
active irpoo-Otlvai, in A, is less apt) auTois {i.e. the hearers) \6yov 
(accus. and infinitive construction after pvq, cp. Blass, § 429). 
The reference in v. 20 is to the scene described in Dt 5 23f -, where it 
is the leaders of the nation who appeal in terror to Moses to take 
God's messages and orders for them : Kal vvv fir] d-n-o6a.vwp.ev, on 
i£ava\wo~et. r)p.a<s to 7rvp to fteya tovto, iav Trpoa6wp.t6a t^/jicis 
aKovaac t^v <pwvr]v Kupiov toS 6eov rjp.(ov cti, Kal a7ro#avou/x«0a. 
But in Ex 20 19 it is the people, as here, who appeal to Moses, 
p.r) XaXeiVw 7rp6s 17/ 6 6eos, p.rj d-7ro6dvwp.ev. T6 SiaaTeXXdp.eyoi' 
(in Ex 19 13 , see above) is passive. Aiao-reXXouai is said by Anz 
{Subsidia, 326 f.) not to occur earlier than Plato; here, as in 
Jth n 12 (ocra Sieo-TciXaTo avToh 6 #eds), of a divine injunction. 
In v. 21 fyavraloiievov is not a LXX term (for the sense, cp. Zee 10 1 


kvplos iiroL7]<rev (fiavTacrias, of natural phenomena like rain) ; it is 
used here for the sake of alliteration (<f>ofi. <pavT.). To prove 
that even Moses was affected by the terrors of Sinai, the writer 
quotes from Dt 9 19 ?k<|>o|36s elfu, adding rhetorically tea! cirpopos. 
He forgets that Moses uttered this cry of horror, not over the 
fearful spectacle of Sinai but at a later stage, over the worship of 
the golden calf. For eVTpopos, cp. 1 Mac 13 2 evrpofios xal «K<po/?os 
(v.l. €fi(po/Sos). The phrase lvTpop.o<s ycvo/Acvos is applied by 
Luke to the terror of Moses at the <pu>vr) KvpCov out of the burning 
bush (Ac 7 32 ). 

Assonance led to ZKrpofios (kD*) or ?/x(po(3o$ (M 241. 255. 489. 547. 
1739 Thdt.). "Evrpo/ios was read by Clem. Alex. (Protrept. ix. 2). 

The true position of Christians is now sketched (vv. 22 " 24 ). 
'AXXa TTpoo-e\r|\u0aT€ Iiwy opei ica! iroXei (n 10,16 ) Geou £wrros, 
the author adding 'UpoucraXTjp. liroupaKiu (n 16 ) in apposition to 
7ro'Aet, and using thus the archaic metaphors of Is 18 7 , Am i 2 , 
Mic 4 lf - etc., in his picture of the true fellowship. Paul had 
contrasted mount Sinai ( = the present Jerusalem) with 17 avw 
'lepovo-aXrj/jL. Our author's contrast is between mount Sion 
( = 'lepovaaXrip, i-n-ovpdvios) and mount Sinai, though he does not 
name the latter. From the 7roAis he now passes to the TroXn-at. 

In Chagiga, 126, i. 33, Resh Lakish deduces from 1 K 8 13 and Is 63" 
that zebul, the fourth of the seven heavens, contains " the heavenly Jerusalem 
and the temple," i.e. as the residence of deity ; while Ma'on, the fifth heaven, 
holds the " companies of ministering angels." 

The second object of irpoaeXrjXuSaTe is ical p,upi<£<ni> (so 
En 40 1 : " I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times 
ten thousand before the Lord of spirits") dyyAwK, with which 
irakriyupet must be taken, leaving the following k<u to introduce 
the third object (v. 23 ). The conception of the angels as p.vpid8t<; 
goes back to traditions like those voiced in Ps 68 17 (to app.a tov 
deov p.vptoTrXd(TLov, ^tXtdSe? evOrjvovvTcav' 6 Kuptos iv avTots ev Siva) 
and Dan 7 10 (p-vpiai /xvpidSes). IIav»;yupis was a term charged 
with Greek religious associations (cp. R. van der Loeff, De Ludis 
Eleusintis, pp. 85 f.), but it had already been adopted by Greek 
Jews like the translators of the LXX and Josephus for religious 
festivals, nanrjyupei describes the angelic hosts thronging with 
glad worship round the living God. Their relation to God is 
noted here, as in i 14 their relation to human beings. *Ev0a 
iravYiyvpis eVei x a P°-> as Theophylact observes (iXapas etOvp-ias, 
rjv 7ravqyvpL<i eVt^Tet, Philo, in Flacc. 14) ; but the joy of 
Lk 15 10 is not specially mentioned. Chrysostom's suggestion is 
that the writer ivravOa ttjv ^apai/ SeiKvuo-i »cai rrjv eu<ppo<ruvr;v avrt 
tov yvocpov kcu tov o-KOTOUs kclL t^s ^ue'XXijs. Augustine (Quaes t. 
i. 168: "accessistis ad montem Sion et ad ciuitatem dei Hier- 


usalem et ad milia angelorum exultantium ") seems to imply not 
only that ira^yupei goes with dyyeXuc, but that he knew a text 
with some word like Travr]yvpi£,6vTU)v (Blass), as is further proved 
by boh ("keeping festival"), Orig lat (laetantium, collaudantium), 
and Ambrose. There is a hint of this in Clem. Alex. Protrept. 
ix. 6, 7, avrrj yap rj 7rpu>TOTOKos iiacXricria rj Ik iroWtov ayaOutv 
crvyKf.ip.ivq 7rai8itov' ravr' eari ra 7rpa)roTO/ca to. h'aTroy€ypap.peva 
iv ovpavois Kal Tocravrais p.vpid(Tiv dyyiXwv <jvp.TravqyvpL£pvTa. 

The human iroXlrat. are next (v. 23 ) described as ckkXtjo-ioi 
irpuTOTOKwi' a.-noyzypap.\i.ivtav iv oipavols. (For the collocation of 
angels and men, see En 39 5 " Mine eyes saw their [i.e. the 
saints'] dwellings with His righteous angels, and their resting- 
places with the holy "; the Enoch apocalypse proceeding to the 
intercession of the angels ("and they petitioned, and interceded, 
and prayed for the children of men ") which the Christian writer 
deliberately omits.) The phrase describes what the author else- 
where calls 6 Aads (tov 6eov), but in two archaic expressions, 
chosen to emphasize what Paul would have called their election. 
They are TrpwroroKoi (as Israel had been 7rpwTdTOKos, Ex 4 22 etc.), 
with a title to God's blessing (v. 16 TrpwToroKia). The choice of 
the plural instead of the collective singular was due to the 
previous plural in p.vpid(riv dyyc'Awv. In aTroY€Ypap.ueVa>i> iv 
oupavols there is a passing allusion to the idea of the celestial 
archives or register — a favourite poetical figure in which the 
Oriental expressed his assurance of salvation. 1 As in Lk io 20 
so here, the phrase refers to men on earth, to the church militant, 
not to the church triumphant; otherwise iv oupayoig would be 

This interpretation, which groups vravijyvpei with what precedes, is current 
in nearly all the early versions and Greek fathers, who generally assume it 
without question. The real alternative is to take (ivpidviv as further defined 
by dyyiXwv iravriyiipei Kal iKKK-qala vpuTordKUv diroyeypafifj.^vuv iv oupavols. 
This introduces and leaves nvpidaiv rather abruptly, and implies that angels 
alone are referred to (so recently Dods, von Soden, Peake, Seeberg), called 
irpuiTordicoi as created before men. But, while a later writer like Hermas 
( Vis. iii. 4) could speak of angels as oJ irpGrroi KTiadivres, diroY€'ypa|j.|i6vuv 
cannot naturally be applied to them. Hermas himself ( Vis. i. 3) applies that 
term to men (iyypa.<prj(rovTai tls ras fil(3\ovs ttjs fw^s fierd tQ>v dylwv). 

A fresh sweep of thought now begins ( 23 *- 24 ). The writer 
is composing a lyrical sketch, not a law-paper ; he reiterates the 
idea of the fellowship by speaking of God, men, and him by whom 
this tie between God and men has been welded, the allusion 
to Jesus being thrown to the end, as it is to form the starting- 
point for his next appeal (vv. 25f -). In Kal tcpm} 0eu -ndvrav it is 
not possible, in view of g 27 (fiera. Se tovto k/kW) and of the 
punitive sense of KpCw in io 30 , to understand Kpn~f)<; as defender 

1 Clem. Horn. ix. 22, ret dvd/xara iv oiipavif ws del fwvrwv dvaypcMpTjvai. 


or vindicator (so, e.g., Hofmann, Delitzsch, Riggenbach). The 
words mean "to the God of all (angels and men, the living and 
the dead, Ac io 42 ), and to him as Kpirqs, to whom you must 
account for your life." It is implied that he is no easy-going 
God. The contrast is not between the mere terrors of Sinai 
and the gracious relationship of Sion, but between the outward, 
sensuous terror of the former and the inward intimacy of the 
latter — an intimacy which still involves awe. In the next phrase, 
TTvcu'fiaTa SiKaiwi/ means the departed who have in this life been 
SiKaioi in the sense of io 8Sfi ; TCTeXeiwp.eVui' is added, not in the 
mere sense of "departed" (reXevrav — TtXetouo-^ai, TtXeiovv), but 
to suggest the work of Christ which includes the Stxaiot, who 
had to await the sacrifice of Christ before they were " perfected " 
(n 40 ). If this involves the idea of a descent of Christ to the 
under-world, as Loofs (e.g. in ERE. iv. 662) argues, it implies 
the group of ideas mentioned in 2 14 , which may have lain in the 
background of the writer's thought. At any rate the " perfect- 
ing " of these Si'/caioi, their TeXeiwais, was due to Jesus ; hence 
(v. 24 ) the writer adds, teat oia0r]icr|s via.% fAeo-iTrj 'It](tou (again at 
the end, for emphasis), where ve'as is simply a synonym for Kaivvys 
(8 8 etc.). The classical distinction between the two terms was 
being dropped in the kqivj). Tt)s ve'as 'UpovcraXrjfj. occurs in Test. 
Dan 5 12 , and the two words are synonymous, e.g., in Test. Levi 
8 14 {lTnK\t]Qr\(TeTo.i clvt<Z ovo/xa kolivov, on /focriAevs . . . Troirycrci 
Upardav ve'av). Indeed Blass thinks that the unexampled Siatfr/K^s 
veas was due to a sense of rhythm ; the author felt a desire to 
reproduce the — <_, w w — of the preceding w TeTeAeiwju.eVwi'. 

In Cambodia (cp. ERE. iii. 164) those who are present at a death-bed all 
" repeat in a loud voice, the patient joining in as long as he has the strength, 
' Arahan ! Arahan!' 'the saint! the just one!' (Pali araham= i the 
saint,' 'one who has attained final sanctification ')." Bleek is so perplexed 
by ko\ irvevfi. 8ik. re\. coming between 0e£ and 'Itjcov that he wonders 
whether the author did not originally write the phrase on the margin, intending it 
to go with iravrjyvpei or ^kk\t](tIi}. The curious misreading of D d, re^e/xeXio;- 
fitvwv, underlies Hilary's quotation (tract, in Ps. 124: "ecclesia angelorum 
multitudinis frequentium — ecclesia primitivorum, ecclesia spirituum in domino 
fundatorum " ). Another odd error, wvevfiaTi for irvtvuacn, appears in D 
(boh?) d and some Latin fathers (e.g. Primasius) — a trinitarian emendation 
( = io 2 »). 

In SiaOrJKYjs ve'as, as in 13 20 , the writer recalls the conception 
with which he had been working in the middle part of his argu- 
ment (chs. 7-10); now he proceeds to expand and explain the 
allusion in ical al'/xaTi parriauou (9 19f> ) Kpeirrov (adverbial as in 
I Co 7 38 ) XaXoGV-ri irapa (as in I 4 etc.) T6i/"APeX ( = to x tow v A/?eA, 
cp. Jn 5 36 ). Reconciliation, not exclusion, is the note of the via 
hiaOrjK-q. The blood of the murdered Abel (n 4 ) called out to 
1 rb "A)Se\ (genitive) was actually read by L and is still preferred by Blass. 

XII. 24, 25.] A WARNING 219 

God in En 2 2 6f - (where the seer has a vision of Abel's spirit 
appealing to God) for the extinction of Cain and his descendants. 
The Kpeirrov in Jesus here is that, instead of being vindictive 
and seeking to exclude the guilty, he draws men into fellowship 
with God (see p. xlii). The contrast is therefore not between the 
Voice of the blood of Jesus (XaXown) and the Voice of the 
decalogue (v. 19 ), but between Jesus and Abel ; the former opens 
up the way to the presence of God, the latter sought to shut it 
against evil men. The blood of martyrs was assigned an atoning 
efficacy in 4 Mac 6 28f - 1 7 21f - ; but Abel's blood is never viewed in 
this light, and the attempt to explain this passage as though the 
blood of Jesus were superior in redeeming value to that of Abel 
as the first martyr (so, e.g., Seeberg), breaks down upon the fact 
that the writer never takes Abel's blood as in any sense typical 
of Christ's. 

The application of vv. 18-24 now follows. Though we have a far 
better relationship to God, the faults of the older generation may 
still be committed by us, and committed to our undoing (vv. 28 ' 29 ). 

28 See {pXtirere as 3 12 ) that you do not refuse to listen to his voice For if 
they failed to escape, who refused to listen to their instructor upon earth, much 
less shall we, if we discard him who speaks from heaven. ' M Then his voice 
shook the earth, but now the assurance is, "once again I will make heaven as 
well as earth to quake." ' 21 That phrase (rb 5<* as Eph 4 9 ), "once again," de- 
notes (StjXo?, as in 9 8 ) the removal of what is shaken (as no more than created), 
to leave only what stands unshaken. ffl Therefore let us render thanks that we 
get an unshaken realm ; and in this way let us worship God acceptably — M but 
with godly fear and awe, for our God is indeed "a consuming fire." 

The divine revelation in the sacrifice of Jesus (AoXowti) 
suggests the start of the next appeal and warning. From the 
celestial order, just sketched, the divine revelation {ihv XaXourra 
. . . thv dir' oupaywy) is made to us ; instead of rejecting it, which 
would be tragic, let us hold to it. The argument is : God's 
revelation (v. 25 ) implies a lasting relationship to himself (v. 28 ) ; 
and although the present order of things in the universe is 
doomed to a speedy fall (v. 26 ), this catastrophe will only bring 
out the unchanging realm in which God and we stand together 
(v. 27 ). The abruptness of the asyndeton in (v. 25 ) pXe'ireTe |at) ktX. 
adds to its force. naparnio-TjaOe . . . Trapairno-a|j.eeoi are only a 
verbal echo of irapYiTTJowro ktX. in v. 19 ; for the refusal of the 
people to hear God except through Moses is not blamed but 
praised by God (Dt 5 28 ). The writer, of course, may have 
ignored this, and read an ominous significance into the instinctive 
terror of the people, as if their refusal meant a radical rejection 
of God. But this is unlikely. By irapainicrtfp.ei'oi -xhv xp^fAaTt^orra 
he means any obstinate rejection of what Moses laid down for 


them as the will of God. El . . . ouk (as was the fact) £gtyuyoi> 
(referring to the doom mentioned in 2 2 3 7f - io 29 ). As in 2 3 (7rw? 
tj/acis iKcf)€v$6ix€$a), cK^euyu is used absolutely ; the weaker Z(f>vyov 
is read only by S c D K L M * 104, etc. In the following words 
there are three possible readings. The original text ran : (a) em 
yr]9 irapaiTTjcrCi/Jiej'oi Toy xP^F-aTi^oi'Ta (N* ACDMd boh Cyr.), 
«rt yrjs being as often thrown to the front for the sake of 
emphasis. But the hyperbaton seemed awkward. Hence (?>) 
tov i-rrl yrjs irapaLT-qo-dpievoL x- (N c K L P Chrys. Thdt. etc.) 
and (c) TrapaiTrjcrdfJLevot. tov eiri yr)s ^. (69. 256. 263. 436. 462. 
467. 1837. 2005 vg) are attempts to make it clear that cm yf]s 
goes with Toy xp*]paTi£oeTa, not with mxpai.TTio-cip.cj'oi.. The latter 
interpretation misses the point of the contrast, which is not 
between a rejection on earth and a rejection in heaven (!), but 
between a human oracle of God and the divine Voice air 
ovpavdv to us. The allusion in tov xPVI xaT % 0VTa l is t° Moses, 
as Chrysostom was the first to see. To refuse to listen to him is 
what has been already called Merely vo'/aov Mwi3o-«os (io 28 ). As 
the Sinai-revelation is carefully described in 2 2 as 6 oY dyyeXwv 
XaXrjOeis Aoyos, so here Moses is 6 xp^H-aTi^uv, or, as Luke puts 
it, os e8e$aro Xoyia £wvTa Sovvai (Ac 7 s8 ) ; he was the divine 
instructor of the Aaos on earth. It is repeatedly said (Ex 20 22 , 
Dt 4 36 ) that God spoke to the people at Sinai Ik tov oipavov, so 
that to take toc xP T U J - aTl '£ 0l ' Ta here as God, would be out of 
keeping with em ttjs y^s- The writer uses the verb in a wider 
sense than in that of 8 5 and n 7 ; it means "the man who had 
divine authority to issue orders," just as in Jer 26 2 (tovs Aoyous 
ous <rweTa£d crot auTots \prip.ari(T at), etc. He deliberately writes 
rbv xPVf xaT ^ 0VTa °f Moses, keeping tov XaXovvra as usual for 
God. Then, he concludes, iroXb (altered, as in v. 9 , to ttoXXw by 
D c K L M P * 226, or to 7roo-<j>, as in 9 14 , by 255) p.aXXof (sc. ovk 
ii«pev£6/ji.e6a) tj/acis 01 Toy (sc. XPVf J - ar ^ 0VTa ) &>"* oupavwy airooTpe<|>6 • 
jacvoi (with accus. as 3 Mac 3 23 d-n-eo-Tpeif/avTO rrjv aTLfirjTOV 
TroXireiav, and 2 Ti I 15 a.Treo-Tpdcf>r)<Tav p.e 7ravT€s). 

It is surprising that ovpavov (n M 216. 424**. 489. 547. 623. 642. 920. 
1518. 1872 Chrys.) has not wider support, though, as g 23, 24 shows, there is 
no difference in sense. 

In v. 26 ou tj fyuvr) tt)v yt\v eo-(£\eucre totc is another (cp. vv. 13 - 14 ) 
unintentional rhythm, this time a pentameter. Totc, i.e. at 
Sinai. But in the LXX of Ex 19 18 , which the writer used, the 
shaking of the hill is altered into the quaking of the people, and 
Jg 5 4f - does not refer to the Sinai episode. Probably the writer 
inferred an earthquake from the poetical allusions in Ps 114 7 

1 Cp. Jos. Ant. iii. 8. 8, Mwi/'<ri7S . . . e'xpij/AaT/^CTO rcpl £>v ("Secro irapk 
tov deov. 


(ia-aXevdr) rj yrj), Ps 68 8f - 77 18 , when these were associated with 
the special theophany at Sinai. Uuv %k eirrJYY e ^ T<u (passive in 
middle sense, as Ro 4 21 ) Xeyue, introducing a loose reminiscence 
and adaptation Of Hag 2 6 (Iti aTra$ iyw creLaw tov oipavov kou -rqv 
yrjv kt\.), where the prediction of a speedy convulsion of nature 
and the nations has been altered 1 in the LXX, by the intro- 
duction of en, into a mere prediction of some ultimate crisis, 
with reference to some preceding aeio-is, i.e. for our writer the 
Sinai-revelation. The second and final owis is to be at the 
return of Jesus (9 28 ). 

The anticipation of such a cosmic collapse entered apocalyptic. Thus the 
author of Apoc. Baruch tells his readers, " if you prepare your hearts, so as 
to sow in them the fruits of the law, it shall protect you when the Mighty 
One is to shake the whole creation" (32 1 ). 

In v. 27 the Haggai prediction is made to mean the removal 
(fieTdGeatf, stronger sense than even in 7 12 ) twv o-aXeuojieVwr (by 
the o-ctcris). There is a divine purpose in the cosmic catastrophe, 
however ; it is Iva. fiei^f) to p,r) o-aXeuojicra, i.e. the j3acuXeia 
do-dXeuT09 of the Christian order. For dadXeu-ros, compare Philo, 
de Vlt. AfosiS, ii. 3, Ta 81 tovtov fxovov /3efiaia, dadXevra, aKpdSavra 
. . . fxevtL Trayiws d<j> 77s r)p.ipa<i iypd(j>rj p.ixP l v ^ y Kal Tpos tov 
l7retTa TrdvTa o\a/x€veiv eA^is aird alwva winrep dddvara. Zeiw and 
o-aXeuoj are cognate terms (cp. e.g. Sir i6 18 - 19 6 oipavos . . . kou yrj 
o-a.\tv6rj<TovTai . . . a/xa ra opr) ko.1 tcl 6ep.€kta rrjs yr)<; o-ucrcretovTat). 
Here ado-v is changed into o-eia> by D K L P d arm and some 
cursives, probably to conform with the form of the promise in 
Hag 2 21 (tycb o"ei'o) tov oip. Kal ttjv yrjv). The hint is more 
reticent, and therefore more impressive than the elaborate pre- 
diction of the Jewish apocalyptist in Apoc. Bar 59 3f - : " but also 
the heavens were shaken at that time from their place, and those 
who were under the throne of the Mighty One were perturbed, 
when He was taking Moses unto Himself. For He showed him 
. . . the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern of 
which was to be made the sanctuary of the present time " (cp. 
He 8 5 ). There is a premonition of the last judgment in En 
60 1 , as a convulsion which shook not only heaven, but the nerves 
of the myriads of angels. 

" There have been two notable transitions of life," says Gregory of 
Nazianzus {Oral. v. 25), in the history of the world, i.e. the two covenants, 
"which are also called earthquakes on account of their arresting character" 
(5ia rb tov irpdynaTos irepifi6riT0v) ; the first from idols to the Law, the second 
from the Law to the gospel. We bring the good news of yet a third earth- 
quake, the transition from the present order to the future (tt]v ivrevdev itrl to. 
iKtiae fieT&o~Ta<riv, to. pri/ctri Kivovfieva, /*t?5£ ffaXevdfj.eva). 2 

1 i.e. while Haggai predicts "it will be very soon," the LXX says "once 

2 Probably a reference to He 12 26 . 


Changes and crises may only serve to render a state or an 
individual more stable. Thus Plutarch says of Rome, in the 
disturbed days of Numa, KaQdirep ra Ka.Ta.irrjyvvp.eva. to crei'ccrflai 
fiaXXov kopd^CTai, pdtvvvo-Qai Sokovctcl Sid t!Jjv klvovvwv ( Vit. Num. 
8). But the writer's point in v. 27 is that there is an dcdXeuTos 
|3acn\eux l already present, in the fellowship of the new 8iadrjKrj, 
and that the result of the cosmic catastrophe will simply be to 
leave this unimpaired, to let it stand out in its supreme reality 
and permanence. The passage is a counterpart to i 1 "- 12 , where 
skies and earth vanish, though they are God's own epya. So 
here, the writer puts in, by way of parenthesis, u>s ireiroiTj^fwc. 
Kypke took ireTroiTjp.eVwj', "pro Tmrot-qpiivrjv, SC. p-erdOea-iv," com- 
paring Mt 5 19 where he regarded iXaxicrrtav as similarly equiva- 
lent to iXax^cTrjv. The word would then be a genitive absolute, 
connecting with what follows : " all this being done so that," etc. 
Even when 7re7rof>y/xeVa«/ is taken in its ordinary sense, it is 
sometimes connected with tva kt\. (so, e.g., Bengel and Delitzsch) ; 
the aim of creation was to replace the provisional by the per- 
manent, the temporal by the eternal. A far-fetched interpreta- 
tion. Even the conjecture (Valckenaer) ireirovrjp.evu>v (labouring 
with decay) is needless, though ingenious. In vv. 28 - 29 the final 
word upon this prospect and its responsibilities is said. Aio (as 
in v. 12 ), in view of this outlook (in v. 27 ), Pao-tXeiak dadXeuToe 
(metaphorical, as, e.g., Diod. Sic. xii. 29, cnrovSal ao-dXevrai) 
irapa\|3deoi'T€s (cp. 2 Mac io 11 and Epist. Arist. 36, kox 17/ 
Se 7rapaAa/?ovTcs ttjv /?acnA.eiav kt\., for this common phrase) 
IxcofACK \6.p\.v (810 with pres. subjunctive as in 6 1 ). The unique 
and sudden reference to the primitive idea of PamXeia (see 
Introd., p. xxxiii) may be a reminiscence of the scripture from which 
he has just quoted ; the prediction about the shaking of heaven 
and earth is followed, in Hag 2 22 , by the further assertion, kox 

KOTaorpei/'u) Opovovs /?a<xiAewv, /ecu i^oXeOpevao) 8vvap.1v /JacuAewv 

twv eOvuv. Possibly our author regarded the prediction in Dn 7 18 
(kou TrapaXrjij/ovTai rr/v (3a<ri\uav ayiot v\picrTOV kcu KaOc$ovcriv 
avryv Iws atwos riav>vu>v) as fulfilled already in the Christian 
church, though he does not mean by /3acn\€iav irapa\ap./3dvovTe<; 
that Christians enter on their reign. 

Why thankfulness (for this common phrase, see Epict. i. 2. 23, 
e^w x° L P LV > ° rt l xov < ^ ct '^?7» an d OP. 1381 78 (2nd century) Sid 
6v(Ti(ov To) croocravTt d.Tr€&ioop.ev ^dptras) should be the standing 
order for them, the writer explains in Si' fjs kt\. ; it is the one 
acceptable XaTpeu'eie (9 14 ), or, as he puts it afterwards (i3 15 ), the 
real sacrifice of Christians. Ai' rjs Xarpeuupey (subj. cohortative 
in relative clause, like (rnji-e in 1 P 5 12 ) cuapeorais (not in LXX ; 

1 Cp. Wis 5 15- 16 StKatoi 5£ et's rbv alQiva ^uxxiv . . . X-^fi^ovrai t6 fiaoL- 
\uov ttjs euirpeirelas . . . £k x el ph Kvplov, Art tJj 5e£i£ (TKeirdcrei avrofa. 

XII. 28.] THE DUTY OF AWE 223 

an adverb from the verb in the sense of 1 1 6 - 6 ) tw 0ew. The v.l. 
exofiey (K K P Lat syr hU eth etc.) is the usual (see Ro 5 1 ) 
phonetic blunder, though Xarpevofiev (N M P syr hU arm) would 
yield as fair a sense as Xarpevoifiev (ACDL 33. 104 Lat sah 
etc.). In fie-rct . . . Sc'ous he puts in a characteristic warning 
against presumption. There are three readings, (a) evXa/3eias 
#cai Seous, N* A C D 256. 263. 436. 1912 sah boh syr vg arm. 
(6) cvXafiuas kcu cu'Sous, S c M P * 6. 104. 326. 1739 lat O ri g- 
(c) ai'SoSs kcu cvAa/Setas, K L 462 syr hkl Chrys. Thdt. The acci- 
dental doubling of at (from /cat) led to (b), especially as aiSovs 
and evXafieia were often bracketed together, and as Seo's was a 
rare word (first popularized in Hellenistic Judaism by 2 Macca- 
bees). Eu\aj3ei'a here as in 5 7 (cp. n 7 ) of reverent awe. Kcu 
yap 6 0€os f\pwv Trup (ccvrafaXicncoi' (v. 29 ). Not "for our God too 
is a Trvp av.," for the writer believed that the same God was God 
of the old StaB-qKrj and of the new ; besides, this rendering would 
require kcu yap Tjpwy 6 0e6s. The phrase is from Dt 4 24 (Moses 
at Sinai to the Israelites) otl Kvpios 6 6e6<; <rov irvp KaravaXta-Kov 
ia-Tiv, t?6os £77X00x77? (cp. 9 3 ), referring to his intense resentment of 
anything like idolatry, which meant a neglect of the hiaOrjKrj. 
There is no allusion to fire as purifying ; the author of Wisdom 
(16 16 ) describes the Egyptians as 7rupi Ka.Tava.XicrK6fj.evoi, and it is 
this punitive aspect of God which is emphasized here, the divine 
£77X05 (see p. xxxvi). 

This is one of Tertullian's points (adv. Marc. i. 26-27) against the 
Marcionite conception of a God who is good-natured and nothing more : 
"tacite permissum est, quod sine ultione prohibetur . . . nihil Deo tam 
indignum quam non exsequi quod noluit et prohibuit admitti . . . malo 
parcere Deum indignius sit quam animadvertere. . . . Plane nee pater tuus 
est, in quern competat et amor propter pietatem, et timor propter potestatem ? 
nee legitimus dominus. ut diligas propter humanitatem et timeas propter 
disciplinam." In Upbs 'Eppalovs there is no softening of the conception, as in 
Philo's argument (de Sacrificantibus, 8) that God's requirement is simply 
dyairav avrbv ws evepyiryjv , el bk ill), (pofietaQai 70W ws dpxovra Kal Kvptov, Kal 
5ia iraawv ttvai tCov els ape'crxeiav bdwv Kal \arpevei.v avrcp jj.t] iraptp-yus dXXd. 
6\rj rrj ipvxv TFeirXrjpafJ/ivg yuw/i^s (pt.Xode'ov Kal tu>v e"vTo\u>v avrov Trepi^x eff ^ al 
Kal to. 5lKaia ti/j.5.v. In de Decalogo, II, he spiritualizes the fire at Sinai thus : 
tov wvpbs t6 /j.£i> tpwrlfeiv rb 5£ Kaleiv nitpvKev (those who obey the divine laws 
being inwardly enlightened, those who disobey being inflamed and consumed 
by their vices), and closes the treatise (33) by enunciating his favourite doc- 
trine that God never punishes directly but only indirectly (here by A£kt?, whose 
appropriate task is to punish those who disobey her liege Lord). Indeed he 
allegorizes the OT comparison of God to a flame (Quaest. in Exod. 24 17 
wcrnep 5e i) (p\b£ iraaav ttjv irapa(i\ride'i<jav b\-qv dvaXlcrKei, ovtws, 6rav iirt.- 
(poirrjcrri el\tKpivT]s tov deov ZvvoLa Tjj ^pvxv iravras tous erepodo^ovs ao~e/3elas 
\oyi<Tfioi>s Sia<p6elpei, Kadoaiovcra ttjv 6\tjv didvoiav). The closest parallel to 
our passage lies in Ps.-Sol 15 s ' - where the author declares that praise to God 
is the one security for man. ^aXfxbv Kal atvov per ybrjs iv ev<ppoo-vvg Kapdids, 
Kapirbv xtiXe'w' • • • airapxyv x ei ^ 0}v ^ wo KO-pblas baias Kal biKalas, 6 iroiQv 
ravra oil ffaXevOrjcreTat els rbv alwva dirb (i.e. inrb) KaKov, (p\b!- irvpbs Kal 


6pyr) &51kuv ovx 8.\ft erai a-irrov, Srav i^XOrj iirl a/mapTcoKovs diro wpocrilnrov 

With this impressive sentence ripos c E|3pcuous really closes. 
But the writer appends (see Introd., pp. xxviiif.) a more or less 
informal postscript, with some personal messages to the com- 
munity. A handful of moral counsels (vv. 1-7 ) is followed by a 
longer paragraph (vv. 8 ' 16 ), and the closing personal messages are 
interrupted by a farewell benediction (v. 20 ). 

1 Let your brotherly love continue. 2 Never forget to be hospitable, for by 
hospitality (5i& tclijtt)s, as I2 18 ) some have entertained angels unawares. s Re- 
member prisoners as if you were in prison yourselves ; remember those who are 
being ill-treated (u 37 ), since you too are in the body. 

Neither <j>i\aSe\<|>ia nor <J>i\o£efia is a LXX term, though 
the broader sense of the former begins in 4 Mac 13 2326 14 1 . 
MeyeTw (cp. 6 10 io 24 - 82f -), though its demands might be severe at 
times (cp. Ro 12 10 , 1P1 22 ; Clem. Ro i 2 ; Herm. Mand. 8 10 ) ; the 
duty is laid as usual on members of the church, not specially on 
officials. In v. 2 a particular expression of this <f>i\a&e\4>ia is called 
for. *i\o§ei'£a was practically an article of religion in the ancient 
world. The primary reference here in nves is to Abraham and 
Sara (Gn i8 lf -), possibly to Manoah (Jg i3 3f -), and even to Tobit 
(Tob 12 15 ) ; but the point of the counsel would be caught readily 
by readers familiar with the Greek and Roman legends of divine 
visitants being entertained unawares by hospitable people, e.g. 
Hom. Odyss. xvii. 485 f. (/cat tc 6eol £ctvoicriv ioiKores d\XoSa7ror<ri 
I 7ravToIoi reXedovTv;, €7ricrrpa><£u>o-i TrdX^as, cp. Plat. Soph. 216 B) ; 
Sil. Ital. vii. 173 f. ("laetus nee senserat hospes | advenisse 
deum"), and the story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid, Met. 
viii. 626 f.) alluded to in Ac 14 11 . In the Hellenic world the 
worship of Zeus Xenios (e.g. Musonius Rufus, xv. a, 6 irepl £<rvovs 
aSiKos eis Toi/ £cvlov d/xapravet Ai'a) fortified this kindly custom. 
According to Resh Lakish (Sota, 10a), Abraham planted the tree 
at Beersheba (Gn 21 s3 ) for the refreshment of wayfarers, and 
4>i\o£€via was always honoured in Jewish tradition (e.g. Sabbath, 
127. 1, "there are six things, the fruit of which a man eats in 
this world and by which his horn is raised in the world to come : 
they are, hospitality to strangers, the visiting of the sick," etc.). 
But there were pressing local reasons for this kindly virtue in the 
primitive church. Christians travelling abroad on business might 
be too poor to afford a local inn. Extortionate charges were 
frequent; indeed the bad repute which innkeepers enjoyed in 
the Greek world (cp. Plato's Laws, 918 D) was due partly to this 
and partly also to a "general feeling against taking money for 
hospitality " (cp. Jebb's Theophrastus, p. 94). But, in addition, 
the moral repute of inns stood low (Theophrastus, Char. 6 5 

XHI. 2, 3.] HOSPITALITY 225 

Sciyos Se TravSoKtvaai ko.1 iropvof3o<TK?]<Tai kt\.) ; there is significance 
in the Jewish tradition preserved by Josephus {Ant. v. i. i) 
that Rahab rj iropvi) (n 31 ) kept an inn. For a Christian 
to frequent such inns might be to endanger his character, 
and this consideration favoured the practice of hospitality on 
the part of the local church, apart altogether from the discomforts 
of an inn. (" In the better parts of the empire and in the larger 
places of resort there were houses corresponding in some 
measure to the old coaching inns of the eighteenth century ; in 
the East there were the well-known caravanserais ; but for the most 
part the ancient hostelries must have afforded but undesirable 
quarters. They were neither select nor clean," T. G. Tucker, 
Life in the Roman World, p. 20.) Some of these travellers 
would be itinerant evangelists (cp. 3 Jn 6-8 ). 

According to Philo the three wayfarers seen by Abraham did 
not at first appear divine (ot 8c 6eiOTepa<; ovrts ^vo-cws eXiX-qOtaav), 
though later on he suspected they were either prophets or angels 
when they had promised him the birth of a son in return for his 
splendid hospitality (Abrah. 22-23). "In a wise man's house," 
Philo observes, " no one is slow to practise hospitality : women 
and men, slaves and freedmen alike, are most eager to do 
service to strangers " ; at the same time such hospitality was 
only an incident (irdptpyov) and instance (Sety^a o-a^co-raTov) 
c/ Abraham's larger virtue, i.e. of his piety. Josephus also 
[Ant. i. 11. 2) makes Abraham suppose the three visitors 
were human strangers, until at last they revealed themselves 
as divine angels (0€acrdyu,evos Tpets dyyeAovs Kal vo/xi<ras clvat 
£evovs rjcnraaaTO t' dvaoras Kal Trap air<2 Kara^devra^ Trapc/cdAci 
£(vlwv /xeTaAa/Jetv). It was ignorance of the classical idiom (cp. 
Herod, i. 44, v7ro8e£d/Aevos tov $civov <povia rov 7rai8os i\av6ave 
(36<tk<i)v) in cXaGoy IcvacmvTes, which led to the corruptions of 
«(\a0ov in some Latin versions into "latuerunt," "didicerunt," 
and " placuerunt." Note the paronomasia iTrikavQ&vtvQe . . . 
ZkaQov, and the emphatic position of dyyeXous. " You never know 
whom you may be entertaining," the writer means. "Some 
humble visitor may turn out to be for you a very dyycAos $eov " 
(cp. Gal 4 U )- 

Miy.vf](TK€crB€ (bear in mind, and act on your thought of) twv 
Seo-fuwy. Strangers come within sight ; prisoners (v. 3 ) have to 
be sought out or — if at a distance — borne in mind. Christian 
kindness to the latter, i.e. to fellow-Christians arrested for some 
reason or other, took the form either of personally visiting them 
to alleviate their sufferings by sympathy and gifts (cp. Mt 25 s6 , 
2 Ti i 16 ), or of subscribing money (to pay their debts or, in the 
case of prisoners of war, to purchase their release), or of praying 
for them (Col 4 18 and 4 3 ). All this formed a prominent feature 



of early Christian social ethics. The literature is full of tales 
about the general practice: e.g. Aristid. Apol. 15; Tertull. ad 
Mart. 1 f. and Apol. 39, with the vivid account of Lucian in the 
de Morte Peregr. 12, 13. This subject is discussed by Harnack 
in the Expansion of Early Christianity (bk. ii. ch. 3, section 5). 
Our author urges, " remember the imprisoned " u»s owoeSefieW. 
If is is taken in the same sense as the following ws, the meaning 
is: (a) "as prisoners yourselves," i.e. in the literal sense, "since 
you know what it means to be in prison " ; or (b) " as im- 
prisoned," in the metaphorical sense of Diognet. 6, Xpia-riavol 
KaTex OVTaL ( * )S & <f>povpa t<T Kocrfxw. A third alternative sense is 
suggested by LXX of 1 S 18 1 (fj if/vyr] 'Iwva#av aweSiOi) rrj if/vxf) 
Aaut'S), but the absence of a dative after o-wSeSe /xivoi and the 
parallel phrase ws iv aijfiaTi rule it out. Probably d>s is no more 
than an equivalent for wtrei. Christians are to regard themselves 
as one with their imprisoned fellows, in the sense of 1 Co i2 2a 
£?T€ 7rao-^€t iv ync\os, (ru/x7rao-;^a iravra to. fii\r). This interpreta- 
tion tallies with io 34 above (cp. Neh i 3 - 4 ). It does not, however, 
imply that iv aw/icm, in the next clause, means " in the Body (of 
which you and your suffering fellows are alike members ") ; for 
iv aujxaTi refers to the physical condition of liability to similar 
ill-usa^e. See Orig. c. Cels. ii. 23, tw tois iv a-wfiacn (Bouhe"reau 
conj. (TuifiaTi) o-vfjifiaLvovToiv, and especially Philo's words describ- 
ing some spectators of the cruelties inflicted by a revenue officer 
on his victims, as suffering acute pain, <I>s iv tois iripwv awp.aa-iv 
avTol KdKovpLevoi (de Spec. Leg. iii. 30). So in de Con/us. Zing. 35, 
kcu tuJ o-v/i,(popwv avrjvvTuiv roil/ KaKou^o/ievwv (i.e. by exile, famine, 
and plague; cp. He n 37 ) ovk ivBeOfxa-ai ^wpto), o-w/xan. 

Seneca {Ep. ix. 8) illustrates the disinterestedness of friendship by 
observing that the wise man does not make friends for the reason suggested 
by Epicurus, viz., to " have someone who will sit beside him when he is ill, 
someone to assist him when he is thrown into chains or in poverty," but 
"that he may have someone beside whom, in sickness, he may himself sit, 
someone whom he may set free from captivity in the hands of the enemy." 
The former kind of friendship he dismisses as inadequate : " a man has made 
a friend who is to assist him in the event of bondage (' adversum vincula '), 
but such a friend will forsake him as soon as the chains rattle ( ' cum primum 
crepuerit catena')." In Ep. Arist. 241, 242, when the king asks what is the 
use of kinship, the Jew replies, ikv roty ffv/xflalvoviri vo/xifanev aTvxovin fj.ii> 
iXarrouadai (cat KaKOiradQfiev ws aiirol, tpalverai t6 crvyyevis 8<rov Icrxvdv iaTi. 
Cicero specially praises generosity to prisoners, and charity in general, as 
being serviceable not only to individuals but to the State {de Offic. ii. 18, 
"haec benignitas etiam rei publicae est utilis, redimi e servitute captos, locu- 
pletari tenuiores"). 

* Let marriage be held in honour by all, and keep the marriage-bed un- 
stained. God will punish the vicious and adulterous. 

6 Keep your life free from the love of money ; be content with what you 
have, for He (airr<5s) has said, 

" Never will I fail you, never will I forsake you." 


8 So that we can say confidently, 

" The Lord is my helper {fio7\06s, cp. 2 18 4 18 ), / will not be afraid. 
What can men do to vie ? " 

As vv. 1,2 echo io 24 - 32 - 83 , v. 4 drives home the iropvos of 12 16 , 
and vv. 6 - 6 echo the reminder of io 84 . Evidently (v. 4 ), as among 
the Macedonian Christians (1 Th 4 3 " 9 ), <£iAaS€A<pi'a could be 
taken for granted more readily than sexual purity. Tipos (sc. 
cctto) as in v. 6 , Ro 1 2 9 , the asyndeton being forcible) 6 ydjios iv 
■naviv, i.e. primarily by all who are married, as the following 
clause explains. There may be an inclusive reference to others 
who are warned against lax views of sexual morality, but there is 
no clear evidence that the writer means to protest against an 
ascetic disparagement of marriage. Koitt) is, like the classical 
A.cyos, a euphemistic term for sexual intercourse, here between 
the married ; dfuai'Tos is used of incest, specially in Test. Reub. 
i. 6, koLtvjv tov 7rarpds fxov : Plutarch, de Fluviis, 1 8, /xr] 
OiXoiV ii.1a.1vav ttjv kolttjv tov yevviycravTos, etc ; but here in a 
general sense, as, e.g., in Wisdom : 

fiaKapia r; areipa r) d/xtavros, 
77ns ovk eyvco kolttjv iv TrapaTTTwfxaTi, 
!£ei KapTrbv iv iirio-KOTrfi ij/v^wv (3 13 ), 
and oi5t€ fiiovs ovre ydp.ov<; Ka.6a.povs In cpvXaaaovatv, 

CTcpos 8' trepov r) Ao^wv avaipel rj voOevwv 68vva (14 24 ). 

In Trdp^ous Y"P KC " jaoixou's ktA., the writer distinguishes between 
/aoiyoi, i.e. married persons who have illicit relations with other 
married persons, and iropvoi of the sexually vicious in general, 
i.e. married persons guilty of incest or sodomy as well as of 
fornication. In the former case the main reference is to the 
breach of another person's marriage ; in the latter, the pre- 
dominating idea is treachery to one's own marriage vows. The 
possibility of nopvtia in marriage is admitted in Tob 8 7 (oi Sid 
7ropv€tav cyd) Aa/iySdva) ttjv d8eA<p7;j' fxov Tavrrjv), i.e. of mere 
sexual gratification 1 as distinct from the desire and duty of 
having children, which Jewish and strict Greek ethics held to be 
the paramount aim of marriage (along with mutual fellowship) ; 
but this is only one form of iropveia. In the threat npiveZ (as in 
io 30 ) 6 0€os, the emphasis is on 6 6e6<s. "Longe plurima pars 
scortatorum et adulterorum est sine dubio, quae effugit notitiam 
iudicum mortalium . . . magna pars, etiamsi innotescat, tamen 
poenam civilem et disciplinam ecclesiasticam vel effugit vel 
leuissime persentiscit " (Bengel). 

This is another social duty (cp. Philo, de Decalogo, 24). In view of the 
Epicurean rejection of marriage (e.g. Epict. iii. 7. 19), which is finely 

1 tit] iv ir&dei iiudv/xlas, as Paul would say (1 Th 4 6 ). 


answered by Antipater of Tarsus (Stob. Florileg. lxvii. 25 : 6 ei/yevrjs koX 
ettyuxof vioi . . . deupSiv 5i6ri r^Aeioj oIkos «oi /S£os <w/c dXXws 5vvo.tcu 
yevtcrdcu, 1) /xerct. 7wai/cds /cai t4kvuv kt\.), as well as of current ascetic 
tendencies (e.g., I Ti 4 3 ), there may have been a need of vindicating marriage, 
but the words here simply maintain the duty of keeping marriage vows 
unbroken. The writer is urging chastity, not the right and duty of any 
Christian to marry. Prejudices born of the later passion for celibacy led to 
the suppression of the inconvenient iv iraai (om. 38. 460. 623. 1836. 1912* 
Didymus, Cyril Jerus., Eus., Athan., Epiphanius, Thdt.). The sense is 
hardly affected, whether ydp (kAD* M P lat sah boh) or 64 (CD C *6 syr 
arm eth Clem., Eus., Didymus, Chrys.) is read, although the latter would 
give better support to the interpretation of the previous clause as an anti- 
ascetic maxim. 

A warning against greed of gain (vv. 5 - 6 ) follows the warning 
against sexual impurity. There may be a link of thought between 
them. For the collocation of sensuality and the love of money, 
see Epict. iii. 7. 2 1, o-ol kolXtjv ywaua rfxiLvecrOai tir/Setu'av 77 rrpf 
o~y\v, KaXov irdL&a. LiTiScVa, kolXov apyvpw/xa [LT)8ei', xpucrw/xa \x.r)Qiv : 
Test. Jud. 18, tpvXd^acrde diro tt]s Tropvcias nal tt/s (piAapyupias . . . 
on ravra . . . ovk acpui dv&pa iXerjarai tov irX-qaiov avrow, and 
Philo's (de Post. Caini, 34) remark, that all the worst quarrels, 
public and private, are due to greedy craving for 17 (.vp.op<bia.% 
ywaiKos 77 \pr\p.a.riMv ktX. In de Abrah. 26, he attributes the 
sensuality of Sodom to its material prosperity. Lucian notes the 
same connexion in Nigrin. 16 (o-weio-e'px €T at y<*p p-oiyzia. ko.1 
(ptXapyvpia ktX., the love of money having been already set as 
the source of such vices). In 1 Co 5 10f - Paul brackets 01 Tro'pvoi 
with o£ irXeoveKTai, and irXeov£$ia (cp. 1 Th 4 6 ) as selfishness 
covers adultery as well as grasping covetousness. But the 
deeper tie between the two sins is that the love of luxury and 
the desire for wealth open up opportunities of sensual indulgence. 
In injuries to other people, Cicero observes (de Offic. i. 7. 24), 
" latissime patet avaritia." When Longinus describes the deterior- 
ating effects of this passion or vice in character (de Sublim. 44), 
he begins by distinguishing it from mere love of pleasure ; 

<piXapyvpia piv vocrrjp,a puKpoiroiov, cpiXr]$ovLa 8' ay zwlcrTaTOV. 

Then he proceeds to analyse the working of <piXapyvp(.a in life, 

its issue in u/3pis, Trapavotu'a, and dvaiaxwria. 

'A^iXdpyupos (the rebel Appianus tells Marcus Aurelius, in 
OP. xxxiii. 10, 11, that his father to v-pwrov rjv <p<Aocrocpos, to 

Sevrepov d<piAdpyupos, to rpirov (piXdyaOos) 6 Tpoiros (in sense of 
"mores," as often, e.g., M. Aurelius, i. 16, /ecu ttSs 6 toiovto? 
TpoVos). 'ApKoup^oi is the plur. ptc. after a noun (as in 2 Co i 7 , 
Ro 12 9 ), and with toIs rrapouaiv reproduces a common Grtek 
phrase for contentment, e.g. Teles, vii. 7, dAA' r^eis ov 8wap.e8a 
apKilaBai Tots 7rapot'crti', orav Kal rpvcpfj iroXv SiSwtt.ei', and xxvili. 3 1, 
Kal /at) €\(ov °vk €irnro6rj<rei<> dXXd fiiwarr) dpKOvp.evo<; Tots Trapoucrii/. 

The feature here is the religious motive adduced in auros ya.p 


eiprjKCk' (of God as usual, e.g., i 13 ), a phrase which (cp. Ac 20 35 
atTos e?7T€v) recalls the Pythagorean avxos e<f>a (" thus said the 
Master "). The quotation 00 prj ere av£> ou8' ou prj ere eyKaTaXiirw is 
a popular paraphrase of Jos 1 5 or Gn 28 15 (cp. Dt 31 s , 1 Ch 28 20 ) 
which the writer owes to Philo (de Con/us. Ling. 32), who quotes 
it exactly in this form as a Aoyiov tov iXem Oeov yuecrrov rjp.epOTr}To<;, 
but simply as a promise that God will never leave the human 
soul to its own unrestrained passions. The combination of the 
aor. subj. with the first ou yu.77 and the reduplication of the 
negative (for ouS' ov p.rj, cp. Mt 24 21 ) amount to a strong 
asseveration. Note that the writer does not appeal, as Josephus 
does, to the merits of the fathers (Antiq. xi. 5. 7, tov piev Oeov 
Icrre p.vrjpy rlav traTepoiv 'Afipapov kcu IcraKou /ecu 'laxwfiov 
■jrapa/jLevovTa kcu 81a ttjs eKeivwv 8iKaiocrvvr)s ovk eyKaraXeiTrovra ttjv 
v-n-ep rjp.wv irpovoiav) in assuring his readers that they will not be 
left forlorn by God. 

'EytcaTaXelTTO) (so all the uncials except D) may be simply an ortho- 
graphical variant of the true reading iyKaraXliru (aorist subj.). In Dt 3 1 6 
the A text runs ov /j.f) tre av-fj ov5' ov <re iyKCLTakelwri, in Jos I 6 ovk ("yKaTaXelwu) 
o~e ovde inrepo\f> o/jlo.1 ere, and in Gn 28 15 ov /xrj ere iyKaTaXeiwu. The promise 
originally was of a martial character. But, as Keble puts it [Christian Year, 
"The Accession ") : 

"Not upon kings or priests alone 

the power of that dear word is spent ; 
it chants to all in softest tone 
the lowly lesson of content." 

"Acre (v. 6 ) GappoCtTas (on the evidence for this form, which 
Plutarch prefers to the Ionic variant Oapcrelv, cp. Cronert's 
Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, 133 2 ) %as fom. M, accidentally) 
\eyeiv. What God says to us moves us to say something to 
ourselves. This quotation from Ps 118 6 is exact, except that 
the writer, for the sake of terseness, omits the kcu ( = so) before 
ou 4>oPir]8T), which is reinserted by n c A D K L M syr hkl etc. 
For the phrase OappovvTas Xiyeiv, see Pr i 21 (Wisdom) e7ri 8e 
TrvXais 7roA€tos Oappovaa Xeyec : and for |3ot]06s and Oappelv in con- 
junction, see Xen. Cyr. V. i. 25, 26, eVciSr) 8' Ik Uepawv ftorjOos wpprj8r]<s . . . vvv 8' av ovtojs e^op-ev cos crvv p.ev crol oucos /ecu 
cv rfj iro\ep.ia cWes 6appov/xev. Epictetus tells a man who is 
tempted (ii. 18. 29), tov deov p.ep.vrjo-0, eKelvov i-rrtKaXov fiorjOov kcu 
Trapao-raT-qv. This is the idea of the psalm-quotation here. 
Courage is described in Galen (de H. et Plat. deer. vii. 2) as the 
knowledge £>v xpv Oappelv ?) p.r] Oappelv, a genuinely Stoic defini- 
tion; and Alkibiades tells, in the Symposium (221 A), how he 
came upon Sokrates and Laches retreating during the Athenian 
defeat at Delium Kal I8wv eiOvs rrapaKeXevopat re avrolv Oappelv, 
/cat eAeyov on ovk airoXeixj/oj airoi. In the touching prayer pre- 
served in the Acta Pauli (xlii.), Thekla cries, 6 0e6<; p.ov Kal tov 


o'lkov tovtov, Xpicrre 'Irjo-ov 6 mos tov 8tov, 6 ifjLoi ftorjOos iv <pv\aicfj, 
fiorjObs i-TTi rjy€fj.6voiV, (iorjObs iv irvpl, fSorjOos iv drjpLois. 

According to Pliny (Epp. ix. 30 : " primum est autem suo esse contentum, 
deinde, quos praecipue scias indigere sustentantem fouentemque orbe quodam 
societatis ambire") a man's first duty is to be content with what he has ; his 
second, to go round and help all in his circle who are most in need. 
Epictetus quotes a saying of Musonius Rufus : oil 6£\eis iieXerav dpKeiadat rip 
de5ofjL^vij) ; (i. I. 27); but this refers to life in general, not to money or property 
in particular. The argument of our author is that instead of clinging to their 
possessions and setting their hearts on goods (10 34 ), which might still be 
taken from them by rapacious pagans, they must realize that having God 
they have enough. He will never allow them to be utterly stripped of the 
necessaries of life. Instead of trying to refund themselves for what they had 
lost, let them be content with what is left to them and rely on God to 
preserve their modest all ; he will neither drop nor desert them. 

Hitherto the community has been mainly (see on i2 14t ) 
addressed as a whole. Now the writer reminds them of the 
example of their founders, dead and gone, adding this to the 
previous list of memories (i2 lf -). 

1 Remember your leaders, the men who spoke the word of God to you ; look 
back upon the close of their career, and copy their faith. 

MnfjjAoyeueTe twv ^youfiei'ojy ufAwe oiticcs (since they were the 
men who) e\<i\r|o-ai> toc \6yov tou GeoG. The special function 
of these primitive apostles and prophets was to preach the 
gospel (cp. 1 Co i 17 ) with the supernatural powers of the Spirit. 
Then the writer adds a further title to remembrance, their con- 
sistent and heroic life ; they had sealed their testimony with 
their (wv ktA.) blood. 'H.yov/j.evo<;, like apx<ov, was a substantival 
formation which had a wide range of meaning ; here it is 
equivalent to "president" or "leader" (cp. Epp. Apollon. ii. 69, 
dvSpas tous rjyov/xevovs iiiwv = your leading citizens, or prominent 
men, and Ac 15 22 ). 1 It was they who had founded the church 
by their authoritative preaching; iXdXrja-av tov Adyov tov 
8eov recalls the allusion to the o-toTrjpia which vtto t£>v aKovcrdvTtov 
(i.e. Jesus) «? r)p.a<; (fiefiaitodr] (2 s ). The phrase denotes, in 
primitive Christianity (e.g. Did. 4 1 where the church-member is 
bidden remember with honour tov \cl\ovvtos 0-01 tov Adyov tov 
6cov), the central function of the apostolic ministry as the 
declaration and interpretation of the divine Adyos. These men 
had died for their faith ; €Kf3ao-is here, as in Wis 2 17 (to. iv iKt3ao-ei 
avTov), is, like efoSos, a metaphor for death as the close of life, 
evidently a death remarkable for its witness to faith. They had 
laid down their lives as martyrs. This proves that the allusion 
in 12 4 does not exclude some martyrdoms in the past history of 
the community, unless the reference here is supposed to mean 

1 In Ep. Arist. 310, of the headmen of the Jewish community at 


no more than that they died as they had lived Kara it'kttiv (ii 13 ), 
without giving up their faith. 

In Egypt, during the Roman period, "a liturgical college of irpeafivTfpoi 
or rryovntvot was at the head of each temple" (GCP. i. 127), the latter term 
being probably taken from its military sense of "officers" {e.g. rryeyuiWs tQiv 

£{w T&£fU)l>). 

'AkaOewpoCtacs is "scanning closely, looking back (dva-) 
on " ; and dkaorpo^rj is used in this sense even prior to Polybius ; 
e.g. Magn. 46 35 - 44 (iii B.C.) and Magn. 165 5 (i a.d.) hib. ttjv tov 
r)0ov<; Koo-fxiov aiacrr pocp-qv. As for pip.el<70e, the verb never occurs 
in the LXX except as a v. 1. (B*) for ipio-rjo-as in Ps 31 6 , and 
there in a bad sense. The good sense begins in Wis 4* 
(■jrapovcrdv re fUfiovvTcn avrrjv), so far as Hellenistic Judaism goes, 
and in 4 Mac g 23 (pipyo-acrOe /xe) 13 9 (p.ip.rjawpeda rovs rpeis toiis 
(ttl rrjs Svpta? vcavtV/covs) it is used of imitating a personal 
example, as here. In the de Congressu Erudit. 13, Philo argues 
that the learner listens to what his teacher says, whereas a man 
who acquires true wisdom by practice and meditation (6 ok 
a<TKrj<T£i to KaXbv dAAd p.r] 8t8ao"«aA.ta ktw/xcvos) attends ov rots 
Acyo^ue'vois dAAd tois Aeyouct, fii/xovfievos tov CKeivwv fiiov iv Tat? 
Kara /xc'pos dv€7riA.7pTois irpa^ta-i. He is referring to living 
examples of goodness, but, as in de Vita Mos. i. 28, he points out 
that Moses made his personal character a 7rapd8eiy/i.a rots 
IdiXovcn fjufxclardai. This stimulus of heroic memories belonging 
to one's own group is noted by Quintilian (Instit. Orat. xii. 2. 31) 
as essential to the true orator: "quae sunt antiquitus dicta ac 
facta praeclare et nosse et animo semper agitare conveniet. 
Quae profecto nusquam plura maioraque quam in nostrae 
civitatis monumentis reperientur. . . . Quantum enim Graeci 
praeceptis valent, tantum Romani, quod est maius, exemplis." 
Marcus Aurelius recollects the same counsel : eV tois tcjv 'Etti- 
Kovpuwv ypd.pp.aa-i 7rapdyyeXua ckcito o-vve^ws VTropup-vrjo-KCO-dai twv 
vaXaiwv Ttvos twv aptrrj xpr)o~ap.evwv (xi. 26). 

Human leaders may pass away, but Jesus Christ, the supreme 
object and subject of their faithful preaching, remains, and 
remains the same ; no novel additions to his truth are required, 
least of all innovations which mix up his spiritual religion with 
what is sensuous and material. 

8 Jesus Christ is always the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever. ■ Never 
let yourselves be carried away wtth a variety of novel doctrines ; lor the right 
thing is to have one's heart strengthened by grace, not by the eating of food — 
that has never been any use to those who have had recourse to it. 10 Our 
(txopev as 4 15 ) altar is one of which the worshippers have no right to eat. 
11 For the bodies of the animals whose "blood ts taken into the holy Place" by 
the highpriest as a "sin-offering, are burned outside the camp" ; 12 and so 
Jesus also suffered outside the gate, in order to sanctify the people (cp. I0 2f -) by 
his own blood (9 12 ). 13 Let us go to him " outside the camp" then, bearing 


his obloquy M {for we have no lasting city here below, we seek the City to 
come). 15 And by him "let us" constantly "offer praise to God" as our 
"sacrifice," that is, " the fruit of lips" that celebrate his Name. 18 Do not 
forget (/x^i iiriKavddveade, as in v. 2 ) beneficence and charity either; these are 
the kind of sacrifices that are acceptable to God. 

V. 8 connects with what precedes and introduces what follows. 
"Ex^es 1 refers to his life on earth (2 3 5 7 ) and includes the service 
of the original ^you/xevoi; it does not necessarily imply a long 
retrospect. Yr\ as in 3 15 , and 6 auros as in i 12 . The finality 
of the revelation in Jesus, sounded at the opening of the homily 
(i lf *)» resounds again here. He is never to be superseded; he 
never needs to be supplemented. Hence (v. 9 ) the warning 
against some new theology about the media of forgiveness and 
fellowship, which, it is implied, infringes the all-sufficient efficacy 
of Jesus Christ. Aioaxcus (6 2 ) ttoikiXcus (2* in good sense) ical 
£eVais jx^i irapa<|>epe<r6e. YlapacfteptcrOai (cp. Jude 12 ) is never used in 
this metaphorical sense (swayed, swerved) in the LXX, where it 
is always literal, and the best illustration of £eV<u? in the sense of 
" foreign to " (the apostolic faith) is furnished by the author of 
the epistle to Diognetus (n 1 ), who protests, oi £eVa 6/xi\ai . . . 
dAAa 6ltto(Tt6X<i}V yevo/Mtvos p.a6t]rrjs yiVo/xai SiSacrxaAos iOvwv. Such 
notions he curtly pronounces useless, iv ots ouk w^eXTJOTjo-aK oi 
irepnraTourres, where iv ots goes with TrtpnraTovvTVi ; they have 
never been of any use in mediating fellowship with God for 
those who have had recourse to them. It is exactly the tone of 
Jesus in Mk 7 18 . 

napa<pipe<s0€ was altered (under the influence of Eph 4 14 ) into Trepi<p£pe<r6e 
(KL*2, 5. 88. 330. 378. 440. 491. 547. 642. 919. 920. 1867. 1872. 1908. 
arm sah). IIepnraT-ii<Ta.vTes (n c C D c K L M P syr hkl arm Orig. Chrys. etc.) 
and irepiirarovvTis (k* A D* 191 2 lat) are variants which are substantially the 
same in meaning, trepiirareh iv being used in its common sense = living in the 
sphere of (Eph 2 10 etc. ), having recourse to. 

The positive position is affirmed in koKov kt\. (*aA.6V, as in 
1 Co 7 1 , Ro 14 21 etc.). " KaXds . . . denotes that kind of good- 
ness which is at once seen to be good" (Hort on 1 P 2 12 ), i.e. 
by those who have a right instinct. The really right and good 
course is x^P lTl PePaioucrGai TTjy KapSiae, i.e. either to have one's 
heart strengthened, or to be strengthened in heart (KapSiav, accus. 
of reference). Bread sustains our physical life (apros KapSiav 
avOpoiirov <m]pl£et, Ps 104 15 ), but *capSta here means more than 
vitality ; it is the inner life of the human soul, which God's x^P^ 
alone can sustain, and God's X'V 1 * m Jesus Christ is everything 
(2 9 etc.). But what does this contrast mean ? The explanation 
is suggested in the next passage (vv. 10 - 16 ), which flows out of 

1 The forms vary ; but this, the Attic spelling, has the best repute upon 
the whole (see W. G. Rutherford's New Phrynichus, pp. 370 f. ), and strong 
support here in * A C* D* M. 


what has just been said. The various novel doctrines were 
connected in some way with PpwjxaTa. So much is clear. The 
difficulty is to infer what the fipwaara were. There is a touch of 
scorn for such a motley, unheard of, set of StSu^ai. The writer 
does not trouble to characterize them, but his words imply that 
they were many-sided, and that their main characteristic was a 
preoccupation with fipw/xaTa. There is no reference to the 
ancient regulations of the Hebrew ritual mentioned in 9 10 ; this 
would only be tenable on the hypothesis, for which there is no 
evidence, that the readers were Jewish Christians apt to be 
fascinated by the ritual of their ancestral faith, and, in any case, 
such notions could not naturally be described as iroiKikai Kal 
£ci/ai. We must look in other directions for the meaning of this 
enigmatic reference, (a) The new SiSa^d' may have included 
ascetic regulations about diet as aids to the higher life, like the 
evTa.Xp.aTa Kal SiSaa-KaXiai twv avdpwirwv which disturbed the 
Christians at Colosse. Partly owing to Gnostic syncretism, 
prohibitions of certain foods (djr€x«o"#cu /3pwp.d.Twv, 1 Ti 4 3 ) were 
becoming common in some circles, in the supposed interests of 
spiritual religion. " We may assume," says Pfleiderer, one of 
the representatives of this view (pp. 278 f.), "a similar Gnostic 
spiritualism, which placed the historical Saviour in an inferior 
position as compared with angels or spiritual powers who do not 
take upon them flesh and blood, and whose service consists in 
mystical purifications and ascetic abstinences." (6) They may 
also have included such religious sacraments as were popularized 
in some of the mystery-cults, where worshippers ate the flesh of 
a sacrificial victim or consecrated elements which represented the 
deity. Participation in these festivals was not unknown among 
some ultra-liberal Christians of the age. It is denounced by 
Paul in 1 Co 10, and may underlie what the writer has already 
said in io 25 . Why our author did not speak outright of ctSwAo^vra, 
we cannot tell ; but some such reference is more suitable to the 
context than (a), since it is sacrificial meals which are in question. 
He is primarily drawing a contrast between the various cult-feasts 
of paganism, which the readers feel they might indulge in, not 
only with immunity, but even with spiritual profit, and the 
Christian religion, which dispensed with any such participation. 
(c) Is there also a reference to the Lord's supper, or to the 
realistic sense in which it was being interpreted, as though 
participation in it implied an actual eating of the sacrificial body 
of the Lord ? This reference is urged by some critics, especially 
by F. Spitta {Zur Geschichte u. Litteratur des Urchristentums, 
i. pp. 325 f.) and O. Holtzmann (in Zeitschrift fur die neutest 
Wissenschaft, x. pp. 251-260). Spitta goes wrong by misinterpret- 
ing v. 10 as though the awfia of Christ implied a sacrificial meal 


from which Jewish priests were excluded. Holtzmann rightly 
sees that the contrast between x<*P ts ar >d /3pw/xara implies, for 
the latter, the only fipw/xa possible for Christians, viz. the Lord's 
body as a food. What the writer protests against is the rising 
conception of the Lord's supper as a <£ayeiv to trw/jta tou X/>«rrov. 
On the day of Atonement in the OT ritual, to which he refers, 
there was no participation in the flesh of the sacrificial victim ; 
there could not be, in the nature of the case (v. 11 ). So, he 
argues, the o-w/xa XpioroC of our sacrifice cannot be literally eaten, 
as these neo-sacramentarians allege ; any such notion is, to him, 
a relapse upon the sensuous, which as a spiritual idealist he 
despises as "a vain thing, fondly invented." A true insight into 
the significance of Jesus, such as he has been trying to bring out 
in what he has written, such as their earlier leaders themselves 
had conveyed in their own way, would reveal the superfluousness 
and irrelevance of these SiSa^au As the writer is alluding to 
what is familiar, he does not enter into details, so that we have 
to guess at his references. But the trend of thought in vv. 10f - is 
plain. In real Christian worship there is no sacrificial meal ; 
the Christian sacrifice is not one of which the worshippers 
partake by eating. This is the point of v. 10 . The writer 
characteristically illustrates it from the OT ritual of atonement- 
day, by showing how the very death of Jesus outside the city of 
Jerusalem fulfilled the proviso in that ritual (vv. 11 - 12 ) that the 
sacrifice must not be eaten. Then he finds in this fact about 
the death of Jesus a further illustration of the need for unworldli- 
ness (vv. 13 - 14 ). Finally, in reply to the question, "Then have 
Christians no sacrifices to offer at all?" he mentions the two 
standing sacrifices of thanksgiving and charity (vv. 15 - 16 ), both 
owing their efficacy to Christ. Inwardness is the dominating 
thought of the entire paragraph. God's grace in Jesus Christ 
works upon the soul ; no external medium like food is required 
to bring us into fellowship with him ; it is vain to imagine that 
by eating anything one can enjoy communion with God. Our 
Lord stands wholly outside the material world of sense, outside 
things touched and tasted ; in relationship to him and him 
alone, we can worship God. The writer has a mystical or 
idealistic bent, to which the sacramental idea is foreign. He 
never alludes to the eucharist ; the one sacrament he notices is 
baptism. A ritual meal as the means of strengthening communion 
with God through Christ does not appeal to him in the slightest 
degree. It is not thus that God's x<*pis 1S experienced. 

The clue to v. 10 lies in the obvious fact that the 0u<ria<m ! )pio»' 
and the aKi\vr) belong to the same figurative order. In our 
spiritual or heavenly o-Kyvrj, the real triapnrj of the soul, there is 
indeed a GuoriaCTTrjpiok i% ou (partitive ; cp. to, «is tov itpov IcrQiov- 


criv, 1 Co 9 13 ) 4)oy€iK (emphatic by position) ouk Ixouo-iy l£owiav x 
(1 Co g 4 ) 01 ttj oxtivt} XaTpeuorres (Xarpeveiv with dative as in 8 5 ). 
It makes no difference to the sense whether ol . . . AarpeuovTts 
means worshippers (g 9 io 2 ) or priests (8 5 ), and the writer does not 
allegorize Ova-taa-nqpiov as Philo does (e.g. in de Leg. Aileg. i. 15, rrj<; 
Ka6apa<; Kal ap.ta.vTov <£rcrea)s ttJs€povo~r)<; Ta a/xw/ta tu> 0ew, 
avrr) 8c ecrn to OvcriaaTypiov). His point is simply this, that the 
Christian sacrifice, on which all our relationship to God depends, 
is not one that involves or allows any connexion with a meal. To 
prove how impossible such a notion is, he (v. 11 ) cites the ritual 
regulation in Lv 16 27 for the disposal of the carcases of the two 
animals sacrificed irepl ttjs duapTias (we to alp.a cio-^ve'^r; c^iXao - - 
ao~6ai eV tu> dyia> iioiaovo-Lv avTa e£a) ttjs Trapep.(3o\rj<; Kal KaraKavaov- 
aw clvto. h'irvpC). For a moment the writer recalls his main argument 
in chs. 7-10; in v. 10 Christ is regarded as the victim or sacrifice 
(cp. 7r/)oo-€V€x^€is in 9 28 ), but here the necessities of the case 
involve the activity of the Victim. Aid Kal 'lT)<rous ktX. (v. 12 ). 
The parallel breaks down at one point, of course ; his body was 
not burned up. 2 But the real comparison lies in ?|u ttjs ttuXtjs 
{sc. T77S Trap€fxfioX J q<;, as Ex 32 26 - 27 ). The Peshitto and 436 make 
the reference explicit by reading ttoAcws, which seems to have 
been known to Tertullian {adv.Jud. 14, "extra civitatem "). The 
fact that Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem influenced the 
synoptic transcripts of the parable in Mk i2 8 = Mt 2i 39 = Lk 20 15 . 
Mark's version, aireKTeivav avrov /ecu i$e/3aXov avrbv Z$<d tov afnreX- 
wvos, was altered into (c^e'/3aAov) ck/SoAovtcs avrbv !£a) tou ap.ire\ujvo<; 
(Kal) aireKTeivav. Crucifixion, like other capital punishments, in 
the ancient world was inflicted outside a city. To the writer this 
fact seems intensely significant, rich in symbolism. So much so 
that his mind hurries on to use it, no longer as a mere confirma- 
tion of the negative in v. 10 , but as a positive, fresh call to unworldli- 
ness. All such sensuous ideas as those implied in sacrificial 
meals mix up our religion with the very world from which we 
ought, after Jesus, to be withdrawing. We meet Jesus outside 
all this, not inside it. In highly figurative language (v. 13 ), he 
therefore makes a broad appeal for an unworldly religious fellow- 
ship, such as is alone in keeping with the x^pis of God in Jesus 
our Lord. 

Toivuv (beginning a sentence as in Lk 20 28 toi'vw cnroSoTe ktA., 
instead of coming second in its classical position), let us join 
Jesus e|o) tt)s Tmpep.po\fjs, for he is living. The thought of the 

1 The omission of 0-ovola.v by D* M and the Old Latin does not affect the 
sense ; £x e "' then has the same meaning as in 6 13 . 

2 The blood, not the body, of the victim mattered in the atonement ritual. 
Hence, in our writer's scheme of thought, as Peake observes, " while he fully 
recognises the fact of the Resurrection of Christ, he can assign it no place in 
his argument or attach to it any theological significance." 


metaphor is that of Paul's admonition fir] o-vvo-xniiaTi^ade t<2 
aluvi tovtu) (Ro I2 2 ), and the words tw dyeiSio-p.dy ciutoG (fjepon-es 
recall the warnings against false shame (n 26 12 2 ), just as the 
following (v. 14 ) reason, ou yap e X ^ v "Be (in the present outward 
order of things) fievouarav x -nokiv dXXa t)\v piXXouaaf cm^nToGu.ei' 
recalls the ideas of n 10 - 14 - 16 . The appeal echoes that of 4" 
O"irov8do-wp.ev ovv do-e\6elv €is €Keivrjv TTjv KaTdiravo-iv. It is through 
the experiences of an unsettled and insulted life that Christians 
must pass, if they are to be loyal to their Lord. That is, the 
writer interprets l^w rfjs irapep.f3o\f}<; figuratively (" Egrediamur 
et nos a commercio mundi huius," Erasmus). Philo had already 
done so (cp. specially quod. det. pot. 44), in a mystical sense : 
fj.CLKpav SiotKt^ci tov 0-oyp.a.TiKov o-Tpa.Toir&ov, /xdvws av OVT109 iXiri(ra<i 
ikctt/s koX 6epaiT€VTr]<; la-ta-dai TtAeio? deov. Similarly in de Ebrietate, 
25, commenting on Ex 33 7 , he explains that by ivnS aTparoireBm 
( = iv Tjj TrapcfiftoXfj) Moses meant allegorically iv t<3 /acto. o-ayurros 
y8tu), the material interests of the worldly life which must be for- 
saken if the soul is to enjoy the inward vision of God. Such is 
the renunciation which the writer here has in view. It is the 
thought in 2 Clem. 5 1 (odcv, d8eX.<pot, KaraXeiij/avTes rrjv irapoiKiav 
tov KO(rp.ov tovtov 7rotrjo-wp.ev to OeXrjpxL tov /caXeVaj/Tos i^a?, k ai 
p.r) <pof3rj6wp.ev e£eA0£iv i< tov Koo-p.ov tovtov) and 6 5 (ov 8vvd- 
p.e6a twv 8vo <f>iX.oi ttvaC Bel 8c 17/ tovto) a7roTa£a/xeVous CKetVoj 
Xpao-8ai). Only, our author weaves in the characteristic idea 
of the shame which has to be endured in such an unworldly 

The next exhortation in v. 15 (ava^pufiev) catches up i£(px<l>- 
p.cda, as hi auTou carries on 71-pos airov. For once applying sacri- 
ficial language to the Christian life, he reminds his readers again 
of the sacrifice of thanksgiving. The phrase KapTroi' xetXeW ex- 
plains (tout itmv) the sense in which 0uo-ia aircrews is to be 
taken ; it is from the LXX mistranslation (Kap-n-ov x«AeW) of 
Hos 14 3 where the true text has Dns (bullocks) instead of "ns 
(fruit). In op.oXoyout'Toji' tw 6i.'6jjLaTi auTou, o^toXoyciv is used in 
the sense of e£o/AoAoyeio-0ai by an unusual 2 turn of expression. 
The ovop.a means, as usual, the revealed personality. Probably 
there is an unconscious recollection of Ps 54 s (i$ t<3 
oVo'/xaTi o-ov) ; Ovaia aii/co-cws 3 is also from the psalter (e.g. 
5<d 14 - 23 ). 'Ava<f>eptiv elsewhere in the NT is only used of spiritual 
sacrifices in the parallel passage 1 P 2 5 dvevcyKcu 7rvev/xari/ca.s 
Ova-Las eu7rpoo-SeKTous 6etS Sid 'I^o-ov Xptcrrov. We have no sacri- 

1 In the sense of Aeneas (Verg. Aen. iii. 85, 86, "da moenia fessis | et genus 
et mansuram urbem "). Note the assonance nlvovaav . . . niWovvav. 

2 But 6fj.o\oyut> Tivt occurs in 3 Es 4 60 5 s8 (A). 

8 In the LXX 4£o/j.o\6yr]<ris is generally preferred to aXvcais as an equiva- 
lent for .run. 


ficial meals, the writer implies ; we do not need them. Nor have 
we any sacrifices — except spiritual ones. (The ovv after St* avrov, 
which K c A C D c M vg syr hkl boh arm eth Orig. Chrys. etc. re- 
tain, is omitted by x* D* P * vt syr v &; but N* D* om. ovv also 
1 Co 6 7 , as D in Ro 7 25 ). The thought of 12 28 is thus expanded, 
with the additional touch that thankfulness to God is inspired 
by our experience of Jesus (&Y avrov, as Col 3 17 evxapio-rovvTc; t<3 
6ei2 warpl 81' avrov) ; the phrase is a counterpart of 81a tou 
dpxiepe'ws in v. 11 . This thank-offering is to be made 81a 7ravTos 
(sc. xpovov), instead of at stated times, for, whatever befalls us, we 
owe God thanks and praise (cp. 1 Th 5 16 ). The Mishna (cp. 
Berachoth 5 4 ) declares that he must be silenced who only calls 
upon God's name with thankfulness in the enjoyment of good 
(Berachoth 5 s inix ppritro nnSo Dnio lOBf-orato ^V • • • "ipiKn). 

The religious idea of thanksgiving was prominent in several quarters. 
According to Fronto (Loeb ed. i. p. 22) thank-offerings were more acceptable 
to the gods than sin-offerings, as being more disinterested : fiavrecov 8t ira'idis 
(pacriv kclI rots 6eoU rjdiovs elvai dvaiuiv ras x a P lJT VP^ 0V ^ fl Ta * fuAtxlovs. 
Philo had taught (de Plant. 30) that evxa-p"?Tla is exceptionally sacred, and 
that towards God it must be an inward sacrifice : 0e<$ 5i ovk iveori yvrjalws 
cvxapiTTrjcrai 81 &v vofxl^ovaiv oi 7roX\o2 KaracncfV&v aLvadrifxaTuv dvaiCov — ovSi 
yap (rv/nras 6 «6cr/ios lepbv a.S-i&xP €ljl v hv ytvoiro irpbs tt)v tovtov TifjLriv — dXXd Si 
itraivuv Kal v/xvojv, ovx °0s 17 7f7wi'iir ^<rerai <pwi>T), dXXd 0O5 6 dei57)j icai 
Kadapiliraros vous iwrixituei Kal dva/xiXipei. He proceeds (ibid. 33) to dwell 
on the meaning of the name Judah, 5$ ep/njveveTai Kvply e^o/xoXdyjtTii. Judah 
was the last (Gn 29 s5 ) son of Leah, for nothing could be added to praise of 
God, nothing excels 6 ei)\o7tDv rbv debv rods. This tallies with the well-known 
rabbinic saying, quoted in Tanchuma, 55. 2: "in the time of messiah all 
sacrifices will cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving will not cease ; all 
prayers will cease, but praises will not cease " (on basis of Jer 33 1 and Ps 
56 13 ). The praise of God as the real sacrifice of the pious is frequently noted 
in the later Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac io 7 ). 

In v. 16 the writer notes the second Christian sacrifice of 
charity. EuTrou'a, though not a LXX term, is common in 
Hellenistic Greek, especially in Epictetus, e.g. Fragm. 15 (ed. 
Schenk), eVi x.P r ] " r ^ Tr ] TL KaL ewroiiigi ', Fragm. 45, ovolv Kpdaaov 
. . . €i>7roua.9 (where the context suggests " beneficence "). 
Koikwkia in the sense of charity or contributions had been 
already used by Paul (2 Co 9 13 etc.). To share with others, 
to impart to them what we possess, is one way of worshipping 
God. The three great definitions of worship or religious service 
in the NT (here, Ro 12 12 and Ja i 27 ) are all inward and 
ethical ; what lies behind this one is the fact that part of the 
food used in ancient OT sacrifices went to the support of the 
priests, and part was used to provide meals for the poor. 
Charitable relief was bound up with the sacrificial system, for such 
parts of the animals as were not burnt were devoted to these 
beneficent purposes. An equivalent must be provided in our 


spiritual religion, the writer suggests ; if we have no longer any 
animal sacrifices, we must carry on at any rate the charitable 
element in that ritual. This is the force of jifj iirikavQaveafe. 
Contributions, e.g., for the support of ^yov'/moi, who were not 
priests, were unknown in the ancient world, and had to be 
explicitly urged as a duty (cp. 1 Co 9 6 ' 14 ). Similarly the needs 
of the poor had to be met by voluntary sacrifices, by which 
alone, in a spiritual religion, God could be satisfied — tokxutcus 
(perhaps including the sacrifice of praise as well as txnroua and 
KOivtavia) Ouaiais euapeareirai (cp. 1 1 5- 6 I2 28 ) 6 6eos- This counsel 
agrees with some rabbinic opinions (e.g. T. B. Sukkah, 59^: "he 
who offers alms is greater than all sacrifices "). The special duty 
of supporting the priesthood is urged in Sir 7 30f -, but our author 
shows no trace of the theory that almsgiving in general was not 
only superior to sacrifices but possessed atoning merit before 
God (Sir 3 14 i\er}p.o(Tvvr) yap iraTpos ovk liri\rjcr6r)<j€.Tai, kcu olvtI 
a/j.apTiu)v Trpo<TavoiKo8oixr)6r)(TeTa.i vol). In the later rabbinic 
theology, prayer, penitence, the study of the Torah, hospitality, 
charity, and the like were regarded as sacrifices equivalent to 
those which had been offered when the temple was standing. 
Thus Rabbi Jochanan b. Zakkai (cp. Schlatter's Jochanan ben 
Zakkai, pp. 39 f.) consoled himself and his friends with the 
thought, derived from Hos 6 6 , that in the practice of charity 
they still possessed a valid sacrifice for sins ; he voiced the 
conviction also (e.g. b. baba bathra io b ) that charity (np"T¥) won 
forgiveness for pagans as the sin-offering did for Israel. In the 
Ep. Barnabas (2 7f -) the writer quotes Jer 7 22 - 23 (Zee 8 17 ) as a 
warning to Christians against Jewish sacrifices (aWOdvzadai ovv 
6<piiXofji€v Trjv yvwfirjv ttjs ayadwervvr)? rov iraTpos r)p.£)V or' rjfxiv 
Acyei, OiXwv p.t] Ojuotws 7rA.avo) p.ivov<i CKet'vots tflTtlv, 7rais 
■7rpoady<Dfxev aura)), but he quotes Ps 5 1 19 as the description of 
the ideal sacrifice. 

The tendency in some circles of the later Judaism to spiritualire sacrifice 
in general and to insist on its motive and spirit is voiced in a passage like 
Jth i6 1M - : 

6prj yap £k 6t[i.e\[u)v avv CSaffiv aaKevdrjuerai, 
irirpai 5' airb wpoadnrov aov u>s KTjpb's TaKrjcrovTai' 
frt 8£ rots <po(5ovp.ivot.s oe <ri> eiiiKareveis aureus" 
6ri /juKpbv 7ra<ra dvffla et's 6(rp.7]v evwbtas, 
Kal 4\&xi<ttov 7rav ariap els b\oKavrw^a <roi' 
6 8e (pofiovfievos rbv nvpiov ixiya.% 81a iravrbs. 

Also in a number of statements from various sources, of which that in Ep. 
Arist. 234 (ri p.lyiar6v icrri do^rjs ; 6 8e elwe' rb Ttfiav rbv 0e6v tovto 8' iarlv 
ov Sibpois ovSi Ovelats, d\\d \pvxys KaOapbr-qri. ko.1 8ia\-fi\peu)s 6<rLa$) may be 
cited as a fair specimen. The congruous idea of bloodless sacrifices was 
common in subsequent Christianity. Thus the martyr Apollonius {Acta 
Apollonii, 44 ; Conybeare's Monuments of Early Christianity, pp. 47-48) 
tells the magistrate, " I expected . . . that thy heart would bear fruit, and 

XIII. 16, 17.] CHURCH LEADERS 239 

that thou wouldst worship God, the Creator of all, and unto Him continually 
offer thy prayers by means of compassion ; for compassion shown to men by 
men is a bloodless sacrifice and holy unto God." So Jerome's comment runs 
on Ps 15 4 ov fjLT) (rvvaydyu tAj ffvvayuryds avrQiv i£ aifidruv. Zvvdywv, 
(prjffif, ffvvayuydt £k tQjv iOvQsv, ov 81 al/xdrwv rcti/ras <rvvd£u)' tovt tcrriv, ov 
irapaaKevdaw Sid. ttjs vopuKTJs p.01 irpoetpxto-Oai Xarpetas, Si aiv'aews 8e fiaWov 
Kai rrjs dvafxdKTov dvaias (Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3. 123). Both in the 
Didache (14 1 Khdcart &prov Kal evxapicrTrjcraTe irpo<Te£op.o\oyr)o-dnevoi t& 
Tra.paTrTwfxa.Ta vp.Civ, 8-rrws Kadapa-t) dvcia vfiCiv 5) and in Justin Martyr (Dial. 
117, Trdvras o5j» ol 81a, tov 6i>6fJ.aTos tovtov dvfflas, 4s wape'SioKev 'lriaovs b 
X/hotAs ylveaffat, TovTio~Tiv £irl Trj evxapiffTla tov dprov Kal tov iroT-qplov, rds iv 
iravTl t6ttw tt)% yijs ywofiivas birb tQi> 'KpiffTiavuiv, irpoXaflLov b debs p.apTvpel 
evape'iTTovs iiirapx^v avT<$), the very prayers at the eucharist are called dvtriat, 
but this belongs to a later stage, when the eucharist or love-feast became the 
rite round which collections for the poor, the sick, prisoners, and travelling 
visitors (vv. 1 '-) gathered, and into which sacrificial language began to be 
poured (cp. Justin's Apol. i. 66, 67). In npbs 'Efipalovs we find a simpler 
and different line of practical Christianity. 

Now for a word on the living Tjyou'uei'oi of the community 
(v. 17 ), including himself (vv. 18 - 19 ). 

17 Obey your leaders, submit to them ; for they (avrol) are alive to the 
interests of your souls, as men who will have to account for their trust. Let 
their work be a joy to them and not a grief— which would be a loss to yourselves. 

18 Pray for me, for I am sure I have a clean conscience ; my desire is in 
every way to lead an honest life. 19 / urge you to this (i.e. to prayer) all the 
more, that I may get back to you the sooner. 

The connexion of vv. 17f - is not only with v. 7 , but with vv. 8 - 16 . 
It would be indeed a grief to your true leaders if you gave way to 
these iroiKikai Kal £tvai doctrines, instead of following men who 
are really (this is the force of avTol) concerned for your highest 
interests. nei0ecr0e (cp. Epict. Fragm. 27, tov ■rrpoo-op.iXovvTa 
. . . Smmtkottov ... ei /iev apaivova, olkovuv xprj Kal Tru9io~6at 
aura)) Kal fitreiKCTK (vTreiK<i> is not a LXX term) ; strong words but 
justified, for the \6yos tov 6tov which Christian leaders preached 
meant authoritative standards of life for the community (cp. 1 Co 
4 17, 21 14 37 etc.), inspired by the Spirit. Insubordination was 
the temptation at one pole, an overbearing temper (1 P 5 s ) the 
temptation at the other. Our author knows that, in the case 
of his friends, the former alone is to be feared. He does not 
threaten penalties for disobedience, however, as Josephus does (c. 
Apionem, ii. 194) for insubordination on the part of the Jewish 
laity towards a priest : 6 Se ye tovtu) p.rj Treid 6p.evo<; vepe£ci Blktjv <I>s 
cis tov 6eov o.vt6v aaefiuv. Rather, he singles out the highminded 
devotion of these leaders as an inducement to the rank and file 
to be submissive. Auto! yap aypuirvouviv uirep twc ^iu\S>y uuuv, 
almost as Epictetus says of the true Cynic who zealously con- 
cerns himself with the moral welfare of men, VTTeprjypvirvrjKev irrrep 
av6pwTT<Dv (iii. 22. 95 ; he uses the verb once in its literal sense 
of a soldier having to keep watch through the night, iii. 24. 32). 


The force of the phrase is flattened by the transference of inrep 
twv \]rux<j<>v ifj.u>v to a position after ci>s \6yov d-n-oSwo-ocTes (as A vg). 
The latter expression, <Ls (conscious that) Xoyov airobwo-ovTes (<Ls 
with fut. ptc. here only in NT), is used by Chrysostom, de 
Sacerdotio, iii. 18 (cp. vi. 1), to enforce a sense of ministerial 
responsibility (el yap twv oi/ceuov irXr]p.p.(Xr)p.aLT<jJV evOvvas bir£)(0VTe<; 
(ppiTTOficv, J)S ov 8vvrj(r6p.€voL to irvp €K<puyeiv £k€lvo, ti xpr) Treicrecrdai 
irpoahonav tov virep toctovtwv aTroXoyiicrOai. jxlXXovra;), but in 
IIpos 'E/Jpcuous the writer assumes that the riyov/xevoi are doing 
and will do their duty. Any sadness which they may feel is 
due, not to a sense of their own shortcomings, but to their 
experience of wilfulness and error among their charges. Adyov 
dVoSiSdVai is more common in the NT than the equivalent Xoyov 
SiSoVai, which recurs often in Greek literature, e.g. in Plato's 
Sympos. 189^, irpoo'iyf. tov vow kcu ovtws Xcye das Sutcroiv Xoyov, 
or in the complaint of the Fayyum peasants (a.d. 207), who 
petition the local centurion that the disturbers of their work may 
be called to account : d£iouvT«s, lav 0-01 S6$rj, KeXevo-ai auTovs 
dyOrjvai £7Ti o-c Xoyov d7roSwo-ovTas 7rcpi tovtou (GCP. i. 354 25- 26 ). 
In Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 42, John says to the captain of 
the robbers, eyu> Xpto"Tw Xoyov Swo"U) vnip o~ov. 

The ivo clause (Iva jieTd xapds touto ttoiwo-ii' ical \ii] orei'd£oKT€s) 
goes back to iretOeo-de . . . viruKCTe. The members have it in 
their power to thwart and disappoint their ^yov^cvot. Tovro ir. 
refers to dypinrvowiv, and the best comment on *ai p.i] o-T€vd£ovTes 
is in Denny's hymn : 

"O give us hearts to love like Thee, 
Like Thee, O Lord, to grieve 
Far more for others' sins than all 
The wrongs that we receive." 

The last four words, dXiunreXes yap "f" 1 ' touto, form a rhe- 
torical litotes, as when Pindar (Olynip. i. 53) remarks, dKcpSeia 
XtXoy^cv OapLiva. Ka/caydpos. It would be a " sore loss" to them 
if their lives failed to answer the hopes and efforts of their 
r]yovp.evoi, hopes like those implied in 6 9 and io 39 . 'AXvo-itcXcs 
(" no profit ") is probably used after Xdyov d7ro6wo-ovT€s with its 
sense of "reckoning." Compare the use of the adverb in 
Theophrastus, viii. 1 1 (ov yap p.6vov if/evSovrai dXXa. «at dXuo-rreXais 
d7raXXaTTovo-i), and the dry remark of Philo (in Flaccum, 6), 
speaking about the attempt of the Alexandrian anti-Semites to 
erect images in Jewish places of worship, when he says that 
Flaccus might have known a>s oi Xvcm-eXes Z6r) iraTpia kivcIv ! 
The term lent itself to such effective understatements, as in 
Philo's aphorism (Fragments of Philo, ed. J. Rendel Harris, 
p. 70) t6 iin.opKiiv dvoo-iov Kal oXvo-tTtXio-TaTov. 

XIII. 18, 19.] PRAYERS 24 1 

The next word (v. 18 ) is about himself. npo(T€u'x€o-0€ (continue 
praying) irepl (cp. 2 Mac I 6 /cat vvv (L8e Trpoo-(v\6p.evoL irepi 
vuwv) Tjp.uK (plural of authorship), TreiSopeGa (a modest confidence : 
"whatever some of you may think, 1 believe") yap on kci\t)v 
ow€i8t]o-ik Ixop.€f. He is conscious of a keen desire (OeXovres as 
in 12 17 ) to act in a straightforward, honest way ; hence he can ask 
their prayers. Hence also they may feel confident and eager 
about praying for him. The writer chooses KaX-qv (cp. on v. 9 ) 
instead of ayadrjv as his adjective for o-wuSrjcriv, probably for the 
sake of assonance with the following KaAws, perhaps also to avoid 
the hiatus after on. When he adds, iv -nacnv (here neuter) 
koAws GeXoKTts d>acrrpe<|>€CT8<u (a phrase which occurs in the 
Pergamos inscript. 459 5 KaAws kcu €vSo'£ws dvacrrpacpfjj'ai, in the 
1st century B.C. inscription (Priene, 115 5 ) dvao-rpecpd/icvos kv iraaiv 
<f>i\[av6pu)ir(Ds], and in Epict. iv. 4. 46, iopryv dyeiv Bvvacrai. naff 
■f]p.ipav, otl /caAws avt<TTpa<pr)s iv rwSe t<3 epyw, etc.), the language 
recalls that of 2 Co i u - 12 where Paul appeals for the help of his 
readers' prayers and pleads his honesty of conscience (t6 p.aprv- 
piov tt/s <rvvei8r}<T€(D<s yp-wv, otl . . . ai'eo-Tpd(pr] kt\.). Perhaps 
the writer is conscious that his readers have been blaming him, 
attributing (say) his absence from them to unworthy motives, as 
in the case of Paul (e.g. 1 Th 2 18 , 2 Co i 17f -). This may be the 
feeling which prompts the protest here and the assurances in 
vv. 19 - 23 . " I am still deeply interested in you ; my absence is 
involuntary ; believe that." 

Kat is inserted before irepi by D vt Chrys. (possibly as a reminiscence of 
1 Th 5 25 ), i.e. pray as well as obey ("et orate pro nobis," d) ; this would 
emphasize the fact that the writer belonged to the Yyov/xevoi. But the plural 
in v. 18 is not used to show that the writer is one of the Tr/o<up.€voi mentioned 
in v. 17 , for whom the prayers of the community are asked. He was one of 
them ; ijnuiv here is the literary plural already used in 5 11 6 9- u . There 
are apt parallels in Cicero's de Officiis, ii. 24 (" Quern nos . . . e Graeco in 
Latinum convertimus. Sed toto hoc de genere, de quaerenda, de collocanda 
pecunia vellens etiam de utenda"), and OP. x. 1296 (the letter of a boy 
to his father), iroid . . . <pi\oirovounev icai avaxj/vxhuw- Hei$6/xe9a (Treido/xai 
256. 1319. 2127) has been changed into ireiroiGofiev by k c C c D ^ W 6. 104. 
263. 326 (Blass), probably because the latter (" we are confident") is stronger 
than weldoueda., which (cp. Ac 26 26 ) only amounts to "we believe" (though 
implying "we are sure"). Retaining ireid6ntda, A. Bischoff (Zeits. fiir die 
neut. Whs. ix. 17 1 f. ) evades the difficulty by altering the order of the words : 
wpcxre&x.. irepl rip-dv ko.\i\v yap <rvv. ?^;om«»', Sti weldo/xtda iv irdcriy k. 0. 
avaffTp£<pe<7&ai, i.e. taking Sri as "because." 

As in Philem 22 , the writer's return is dependent on his friends' 
prayers (v. 19 ) ; specially (see p. 17) let them intercede with God for 
his speedy restoration to them, Xva Tdxioy diroKaTaoTaOw up.iv (cp. 

OP. I 81 (A.D. 49-50) aTTOKaTeo-TaOr) p.01 6 vids). Td^tov may 

mean "the sooner" (i.e. than if you did not pray) or simply 
" soon " (as in v. 23 , where, as in Hellenistic Greek, it has lost 


its comparative meaning). What detained the writer, we cannot 
tell. Apparently (v. 23 ) it was not imprisonment. 

A closing prayer and doxology, such as was not uncommon 
in epistles of the primitive church (e.g. i Th 5 23 , i P 5 11 ), now 
follows. Having asked his readers to pray for him, he now prays 
for them. 

20 May the God of peace "who brought up" from the dead our Lord (7 14 ) 
Jesus (see p. lxiii), "the" great "Shepherd of the sheep, with the blood of 
the eternal covenant" ^furnish you with everything that is good for the doing 
of his will, creating in your lives by Jesus Christ what is acceptable in his 
own sight ! To him (i.e. God) be (sc. ei'77) glory for ever and ever. Amen. 

'0 8e6s ttjs clpr^s means the God of saving bliss (see on 12 11 ), 
elprjvrj being taken in a sense like the full OT sense of the secure 
prosperity won by the messianic triumph over the hostile powers 
of evil (cp. 2 14 7 2 ). There is no special allusion here, as in 
Paul's use of the phrase (Ro 15 33 , 2 Co 13 11 etc.), to friction in 
the community ; the conflict is one in which God secures dprjvr] 
for his People, a conflict with evil, not strife between members 
of the church. The method of this triumph is described in 
some OT phrases, which the writer uses quite apart from their 
original setting. The first quotation is from Is 63 11 ttov 6 
dva/?i/3dcras i< rijs y^s rov iroifxiva rwv irpofidraiv, which the writer 
applies to Jesus — his only reference to the resurrection (cp. on 
vv. 11 - 12 ). But there is no need (with Blass) to follow Chrysostom 
in reading r>}s yij<; here for vcK/awv. With deayeu' in this sense, 
Ik vtKpuv (so Ro 10 7 ) or some equivalent (e'f dSov, Ps 30 4 , Wis 
16 13 , Joseph. Ant. vi. 14. 2) is much more natural. In toc 
iroifieVa twc irpopdiwi' tok fieyav, 6 /teyas is applied to him as in 
4 14 io 21 . The figure of the Troifirjv, which never occurs in Paul, 
plays no role in our author's argument as it does in 1 Peter (2 s5 
5 4 ) ; he prefers Upevs or apxqyos, and even here he at once 
passes to the more congenial idea of the haOrfKr]. Jesus is the 
great Shepherd, as he has made himself responsible for the 
People, identifying himself with them at all costs, and sacrificing 
his life in order to save them for God. But as death never 
occurs in the OT description of the divine shepherd, not even 
in the 23rd Psalm, the writer blends with his quotation from 
Isaiah another — eV cup.a,Ti oia8r)KT]s alwiaou, a LXX phrase from 
Zech 9 11 (cv cu/xaTi 8ia6r/Ky]<; (rov i£a.Tr£<TTei\a<; Seayu'ous crov), 
Is 55 s (8iadrj( hia6r)Kt}v alwviov), etc. 'Ev atyaan 8ia6iqKr)<; 
aliDviov goes with avayaywv, not with rov iroip.iva, in which case 
rov would need to be prefixed to the phrase. Jesus was raised 
to present his blood as the atoning sacrifice which mediated the 
8ia6rji<r) (9 11 - 24f -). To the resurrection (cp. on v. 12 ) is thus 
ascribed what elsewhere in the epistle is ascribed to the €to-eX0£iv 
cis tci dyia. But as the stress falls on alwviov, then more is 


implied than that apart from the alpa no htad-qK-q could have 
been instituted. In reality the thought resembles that of 9 14 

(os Sta TrvevpaTOS attoi'tou (avrbv TrpoarjveyKCV . . . KaOapul tt/i' 
<rvi>ei8r](Tiv r]p.u)v . . . €is to Xarpevciv Sew £u>vti), where eis to 
Karpeveiv 6tw corresponds to eis to iroi-fjo-ai to 0e\T]ua aoTou 
below ; lv ktX. is " equipped with," not " in virtue of." This 
interpretation is in line with the author's argument in chs. 
7-10. " Videtur mihi apostolus hoc belle, Christum ita resur- 
rexisse a mortuis, ut mors tamen eius non sit abolita, sed 
aeternum vigorem retineat, ac si dixisset : Deus filium suum 
excitavit, sed ita ut sanguis, quern semel in morte fudit, ad 
sanctionem foederis aeterni post resurrectionem vigeat fructumque 
suum proferat perinde ac si semper flueret" (Calvin). In 
KaTapn'o-ai (the aor. optative) * ktA.., there is a parallel to the 

thought of Ph 2 13 . Eis to iroLrjaai to 6e\rjp.a avrov recalls the 
language of io 86 , and 81a 'lr]o-ou Xptorou goes with -rroiwi' : the 
power of God in our lives as for our lives (v. 20 ) works through 
the person of Jesus Christ. To take Sta 1. X. with t6 eudpeorov 
eyojmof auTou yields an unobjectionable sense, corresponding to 
the thought of v. 15 . But to . . . avrov stands quite well by 
itself (cf. 1 Jn 3 s2 ). 

The writer makes no such use of the shepherd and flock metaphor as, e.g., 
Philo had done. The Jewish thinker ( Fit. A/os. i. n) argues that the 
calling of a shepherd is the best preparation for anyone who is to rule over 
men ; hence " kings are called shepherds of their people" as a title of honour. 
He also interprets the sheep as the symbol of a nature which is capable of 
improvement (de sacrif. Abel. 34, TrpoKOTrrjs 5t Trpoparov, ws /cat atirb drjXol 
ToVvofxa., crvp.(3o\oi>). The classical habit of describing kings as shepherds of 
their people would help to make the metaphor quite intelligible to readers of 
non-Jewish origin. Compare, e.g. , the saying of Cyrus (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 
viii. 2. 14), that a good shepherd resembled a good king, tov re yap von^a 
XpV vaL <=<Pv evSai/iova t& kttjvtj ttoiovvto. xPV a @ aL avrois, 7) 5rj irpo/3&Twi> evdai- 
fiovla, t6v re j3acn\{a waavrus ev8al/j.oi>as Tr6\eis sal avdpwirovs troiovvTa 

flavTi was soon furnished with the homiletic addition of epyo) (C K M F 
syr sah arm eth Chrys. Thdt. etc.), or even Zpyy nal Xdyq) (A, from 2 Th 2 17 ). 
Iloiuiv has either ctury (x* A C* 33* 1288 boh) or eavrif (Greg. Nyss.) or 
avrds (d 1912) prefixed. Hort, admitting that "it is impossible to make 
sense of o.vt£" (B. Weiss, Blass = eai'Ty), maintains that oi;r6s is original. 
It is a homiletic insertion, out of which clvtl) arose by corruption. 'Hfj.iv 
(n D M *■ 33. 104. 181. 326. 917. 927. 1288. 1739. 1912, etc. syr v K sah boh 
arm) is merely an error for vp.iv, due to the preceding rjfi.Qi'. 

A personal postscript (vv. 22-24 ) is now added, as 1 P 5 12 " 14 
after 5 10 - n . 

22 I appeal to you, brothers (3** 12 IO 19 ), to bear with this appeal of mine. 
It is but a short letter. 

1 This lonely occurrence of the optative points to its tendency after the 
LXX to disappear ; thus, apart from fir] yevoiro, it only occurs once in a 
writer like Epictetus (iii. 5. n). 


23 You must understand that our brother Timotheus is now free. If he 
comes soon, he and I will see you together. 

24 Salute all your leaders and all the saints. The Italians salute you. 
28 Grace be with you all. Amen. 

The Timotheus referred to (in v. 23 ) is probably the Timo- 
theus who had been a colleague of Paul. The other allusions 
have nothing to correspond with them in the data of the NT. 
But there is no ground for supposing that vv. 22 " 25 were added, 
either by the writer himself (VVrede) or by those who drew up 
the canon, in order to give a Pauline appearance to the docu- 
ment (see Introd., pp. xxviii f.). Seeberg's reasons for regarding 
vv 22-25 as a fragment of some other note by the same writer are 
that 23b implies not a church but a small group of Christians, 
and that vv. 18 - 23 presuppose different situations ; neither reason 
is valid. The style and contents are equally unfavourable to 
Perdelwitz's theory, that vv. 22 " 25 were added brevi mann by some 
one who wrote out a copy of the original Xoyos irapa.K\rjcrew<; and 
forwarded it to an Italian church. 

In v. 2 - di'exeaGe, for which avT^aOi. (J. Pricaeus apud Tit i 9 ) 
is a needless conjecture, takes a genitive (as in 2 Ti 4 3 rrj<; 
vyLaLvovcrrj<; SiSao-xaAias ovk dve£ovrai, and in Philo, quod omnis 
probus, 6, koX 7rws 7raxpos fxev fj p^Tpos lirtTayp.a.T^iiv 7ratoes dveYOVTtn, 
yvwpifj.oi Se a»y av v<j>-qyr]Ta\ Sta/ceAeuaji/rai). It has been flattened 
into dve'x«r#ai (infinitive as in i P 2 11 ) by D* ^ vg arm 181. 436. 
1288. 13 1 1. 1873, etc. (Blass). A written homily may be like a 
speech (Ac 13 15 ), a Xoyos tt}s irapai<\'rjo-€u>s (cp. on I2 5 ); irapa- 
KA770-1S echoes irapaKaXew He is not the only early Christian 
writer who mildly suggested that he had not written at undue 
length (cp. e.g. I P 5 12 Si' oAi'ywv eypanj/a, irapaKaXwv ktX. ; Barn I 5 - 8 ) 
Kal y°-P ("etenim" as 4 2 ) 8id Ppax«wf (sc. Xo'ywv) en-eo-TciXa r 
(epistolary aorist) 6jju>. Atd /Spa^eW was a common phrase in this 
connexion ; e.g. Lucian's Toxaris, 56 (ttzmttIov Kal ravrd croi 
vop.o6erovvTL /cat Sid /Spa^ewr XeKTeov, fir] kou K(lp.r}<; t)plv rrj a.Korj 

avp.irepivo(TTU)i>). IIpos 'EjSpaious may be read aloud easily in one 
hour. The writer has had a good deal to say (iro\v<;, 5 11 ), and 
he has now said it. Not I hope, he adds pleasantly, at too great 
length ! As for the Suo-eppr/i'cuTos Xe'yav, that is another question 
which he does not raise here. He is not pleading for a patient 
reading, because he has had to compress his argument into a 
short space, which makes it hard to follow, owing to its highly 
condensed character. What he does appear to anticipate is the 
possibility of his readers resenting the length at which he has 

1 For iwio-Tti\a (here as in Ac 15 20 21 25 ; Theophr. 24 13 iiriarlW^v ar; 
ypa<peiv kt\. = " write," " send a letter "), see Laqueur's Quaest. Epigraph. 
et Papyr. Selectae, 16 f. (iin<iTiW(i.v=. " communicare aliquid cum aliquo sive 
per hominem sive per epistolam "). 

XIII. 22, 23.] SHORT LETTERS 245 

written. When the younger Pliny returned a book to Tacitus, 
with some criticisms upon its style and matter, he said he was 
not afraid to do so, since it was those most deserving praise whc 
accepted criticism patiently ("neque enim ulli patientius repre- 
hunduntur quam qui maxime laudari merentur," Epp. vii. 20). 
The author of IIpos 'E/3/Wous might have taken this line, for he 
has done justice to the good qualities of his friends (e.g. 6 9f - io 39 
i3 lf ')> even in reproving them for backwardness and slowness. 
But he prefers to plead that his words have not been long ; his 
readers surely cannot complain of being wearied by the length of 
his remarks. Not long before, Seneca had made the same kind 
of observation to Lucilius (Ep. xxxviii. 1) about short letters 
being more effective than lengthy discussions. " Merito exigis 
ut hoc inter nos epistularum commercium frequentemus, pluri- 
mum proficit sermo, quia minutatim inrepit animo . . . ali- 
quando utendum est et illis, ut ita dicam, concionibus, ubi qui 
dubitat inpellendus est : ubi vero non hoc agendum est ut veht 
discere sed ut discat, ad haec submissiora uerba ueniendum est. 
facilius intrant et haerent : nee enim multis opus est, sed efficaci- 
bus." But Seneca's practice was not always up to his theory in 
this respect. His Stoic contemporary Musonius Rufus gave 
examples as well as precepts of brevity, which were more telling 
(e.g. ocrris Se iravra^ov SeiTcu d7ro8ei£eojs kou ottov <Ta<pr) -ra 7rpdyp.aTa 
icrTLV, 77 Sid ttoX\u)v a.TrooeiKvvcr$ai /Jol'Actcii avTio ra oV oXiytov 
8vvdfj.eia, TravTairaaiv o.toito<; /cat ovapa.6r)<;, ed. Hense, pp. I, 2). 
The literary critic Demetrius considered that the length of a 
letter should be carefully regulated (to 8k ueyeflos avvecrTdXdu) rijs 
cVto-ToA^?, De Elocut. 228) ; letters that were too long and stilted 
in expression became mere treatises, crvyypdfxfiaTa, as in the case of 
many of Plato's, whereas the true liriuToX-q, according to Demetrius 
(ibid. 231), should be <fnXo(pp6vrj(n<; in a brief compass (cnWo/xos). 
Which would apply to ILoos "E^paiov;. Erasmus comments : 
" Scripsi paucis, ut ipse vos brevi visurus." He may have, but 
he does not say so. 

In v. 23 yivwcTKere is imperative ; he is conveying a piece of 
information. • See, e.g., Tebt. P. 37 2 (73 B.C.) ymoo-Ke K^aXav 
. . . TrpocreXrjXvOevai ArjprjTpiu) : ibid. I2 2 (n8 B.C.) 36 2 56 s . The 
construction with the participle is common (e.g. Lk 8 46 ) ; you 
must understand tov aSeX^ rjpjv (omitted by X c D b - c K P * 6 
Chrys. etc.) Tip-oGeok diroXeXuueVoi', i.e. "is (set) free," not 
necessarily from prison. The general sense, ranging from " is 
free" to "has started," may be illustrated, e.g., from the applica- 
tion of a woman to leave Alexandria via Pharos (OP. 1271 45 , 

iii A.D. : d£ia> ypdipai ere tw 67riTpo7rw 1-775 Qdpov diroXvcrcu p.€ /card 
to !#os), or from BGU. i. 27 12 * 15 (icaff rjpipav Trpoa8ex6p[e]6a 
Si/aicrcrwptav wore Iws cr^p.tpov p.r]8ivav a.7roXeXvcr6ai twv uctoi crtVou), 


where a. = " has set out," as in Ac 28 25 (aireXvovTo). The inter- 
pretation of the next words p.e9' ou iav Taxio^ epxrjTCu o\J/oficu up.ds 
depends upon whether Timotheus is supposed to join the writer 
or to journey straight to the community addressed. In the 
latter case, the writer, who hopes to be coming soon (v. 19 ) 
himself, looks forward to meeting him there. In the former 
case, they will travel together. It is natural to assume that when 
the writer sent this message, Timotheus was somewhere else, and 
that he was expected ere long to reach the writer. For ctyo/xai = 
visit, see 3 Jn 14 eA7ri£w Se evditos ISelv ere, etc. 'Eaj/ Ta^iov 
(.px^rai may mean either, " as soon as he comes," or " if he 
comes soon." The latter suits the situation implied in v. 19 
better. The writer (in v. 19 ) asks the prayers of his readers, that 
some obstacle to his speedy return may be removed. If this 
obstacle were the hindrance that kept Timotheus from joining 
him on a journey which they had already planned to the church 
(Riggenbach), he would have said, "Pray for Timotheus, I 
cannot leave for you till he rejoins me." But the idea is : as 
the writer is rejoining his friends soon (he hopes), he will be 
accompanied by Timotheus, should the latter arrive before he 
has to start. Written advice is all very well, but he hopes soon 
to follow up this Xoyo? TrapaKXrjo-ews with personal intercourse, 
like Seneca in Ep. vi. 5 (" plus tamen tibi et uiua vox et convictus 
quam oratio proderit. in rem praesentem uenias oportet, primum 
quia homines amplius oculis quam auribus credunt, deinde quia 
longum iter est per praecepta, breue et efficax per exempla"). 

The greeting comes as usual last (v. 24 ). 'A(nrd<ra<70e ktA. is 
an unusual turn, however; the homily was evidently sent to the 
community, who are told to greet all their ^you/Ac^oi. This finds 
its nearest parallel in Paul's similar injunction (Ro i6 3f ) to the 
Ephesian Christians to salute this and that eminent member of 
their circle. Still, no other NT church is bidden to salute its 
leaders ; and though the writer plainly wishes to reinforce his 
counsel in v. 17 , the irdrras suggests that the persons addressed 
were " part of the whole church of a large city ... a congrega- 
tion attached to some household " (Zahn) ; they are to convey 
the writer's greetings to all the leaders of the larger local church — 
and to all their fellow-members (koi irata-as tous dyious being more 
intelligible, in the light of a passage like Ph 4 21 aenrdo-aade warm 
dyiov). To his personal greetings he now adds greetings from some 
Italians. In 01 dird ttjs 'iTaXias, awo may have its usual sense of 
" domiciled at " (practically = eV), as, e.g., in OP. i. 81 (a.d. 49-50), 
where t5>v a-rr '0£vpvyxa>i> means " the inhabitants of Oxy- 
rhynchus," or in HX-jvt . . . ano 3?/xai), i.e. at Phmau (ostracon of 
a.d. 192, quoted in Deissmann's Light from the East, p. 186). 
If it thus means residents in Italy, the writer is in Italy 

XIII. 24.] FAREWELL 247 

himself. But ol 6.™ tt}? 'iTaAias, on the analogy of Ac 21 27 
(01 a-n-o rrjs 'Ao-tas 'IovSaiot), might equally well mean Italians 
resident for the time being outside Italy ; in this case the 
writer, who is also abroad, is addressing some Italian community, 
to which their countrymen forward greetings. Grammatically, 
either rendering is possible, and there is no tradition to decide 
the question. Perhaps o! anr6 rijs 'iTaAias is more natural, 
however, as a description of some Italian Christians abroad who 
chanced to be in the same locality as the writer and who take 
this opportunity of sending their greetings by him to an Italian 
community. If the writer was in Italy, we should have expected 
7ra^T€s ol airo rrjs 'IraXias, considering the size of Italy and the 
scattered Christian communities there at this period. 

The final benediction, tj x»P l s (•""• '°" ra) or c "?) f JL6T °' ttc^twv 
u/xwi' (Tit 3 15 , 2 Ti 4 22 ) has a liturgical djirjy, which is omitted 
by N* W fuld sah 33 ; the homily was, of course, intended to be 
read aloud at worship. 



Words marked * are peculiar in NT to Hebrews. 
,, ,, f occur only in quotations from LXX. 

,, ,, X are peculiar in NT to Luke (gospel, Acts) and Hebrews. 

,, ,, [Paul] [T] [P] are only used elsewhere in NT by Paul, or in 

the Pastoral Epistles, or in I Peter. 

fkapto, 5 4 . 7", 9 4 - 
"A^SeX, II 4 , 12 24 . 
'Appad/x, 2 16 , 6 13 , 7 

1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 9 

I 1 

8. 17 

dya06s, 13 s1 : ra aya$d, 9 11 , IO 1 . 
t dyaWlaais, I 9 . 
f dyairdb), I 9 , I2 6 . 

dydirn, 6 10 , IO 24 . 

dyairr]T6i (dyairrjToi), 6 9 . 

&yye\os, I 4 - 5 - «• (LXX) 7 - (LXX) ls , 
2 2 - 6 - 7 -(LXX) 9 - 16 , 12 22 , 13 2 . 

* dyei>ea\6yijT0i, J 3 . 

ayidfa, 2 U , 9 13 , io 10 - 14 - 29 , 13 12 . 

ayiacr/Ads, I2 14 . 

4710s, 3 1 (Christians) : 01 dyioi, 6 10 , 
13 24 : (rd) iyia, 8 2 , 9 2 - 3 - 8 - ,2 - 24 - 25 , 
IO 19 13" : irvedfia ttyiov, 2 4 , 3 7 , 
6 4 , 9 8 , io 15 : rd C1710V, 9 1 . 

07167-775, 1 2 10 [Paul?]. 
X dyKvpa, 6 19 . 

d7^o^w, 5 2 . 

* dyv6ij/j,a, 9 7 . 
dypvirvtu) (virip), 13 17 . 
470J, 2 10 . 

d7wv, 12 1 [Paul]. 

&de\<f>6t, 2 n - 12 - (LXX) 17 , 3 1 - ,2 , 7 s , 
8 U (LXX), io 19 , i3 22 - 23 . 
idSiKla(\ 9 ?), 8 12 . 

&8ikos, 6 10 . 

dS6/«/ios, 6 8 [Paul]. 

dStWros (dSiWrov), 6 4 - 18 , io 4 , II 6 . 
t del, 3". 

ddertw, IO 28 . 

dfcVrjjim, 7 18 , 9 M . 
&6\ii<tis, IO 32 . 
af7etoy, II 37 . 
! AtytfjTrios, 1 1 29 . 
Atyvn-Tos, 3 16 , 8 9 , 
ai'Stis, I2 28 {s.v.l) [T]. 


26. 27 


,7. 12. 13. 14. 18. 19. 20. 



,4. 19. 29 




(LXX) 21 - 

, 2 4.24 i jjU. 13.20 (LXX). 

al/j.a.T€KXvcrla ) 9 22 . 

atveffLS, 13 16 . 

alpelffdcu (eX6 / ae»'os), II !S [Paul]. 
: aicr6r]T7ipiov, 5 14 . 

alffxvvrj, I2 2 . 

aMa, 2 11 . 
: afrtos, 5 9 . 

alwv, 1 8 (LXX), 5 8 (LXX), 6 8 - 20 , 
7 17 - (LXX) 21 (LXX), 7 24 - 28 : o\ 
alwves, I 2 , 9 26 , II 3 , 13 s - 21 . 

al&viot, 13 20 (5iadr)KT)), 9 15 (kXtj/jo- 
vo/ila), 6 2 ((cptua), 9 12 (Xt'/Tpaxrts), 
9 14 (Trvev/ia), 5 9 (<ru}T7]pia). 

Akclkos, 7 26 [Paul]. 

&Kavda, 6 8 . 
1 d/cardXirros, 7 18 - 

d(f\(fr;s, IO 23 . 

d*""?. 4 2 , 5 


,1. 3 

IB. 16 

axoou, 2 1 - s , 3 7 - (LXX) 

(LXX), I2 19 . 
dKpodiviov, 7 4 . 

&Kpos, 11 21 (to dx-poi', LXX) 
dXrtdeia, io 28 . 
dXijffi^f, 8 8 , 9 24 , io 22 . 

34 8 



9. 34 


dXXd, 2", 3", 5 4 - 8 . 7 16 , 9 24 , 
io 3 - 28 - 39 , 11 13 , i2 11 - 22 - :!6 (LXX) ) 

I3 14 - , 
' dXXdffcrw, I . 
dW^Xos, IO 24 . 
dXXos, 4 8 , II s5 . 
dXXorpios, 9 25 , 1 1 
dXX* ov, 3 16 , 4 2 . 
1 dXufftreXTjs, I3 n . 
a/xaprdvu), 3 17 , IO 26 . 
d/uxprfo, I 3 , 2 17 , 3 13 , 4 18 , 5 U S . 7*. 

8" (LXX), 9 J6 - 28 , io 2 - 3 - *■ 6 - 

(LXX) 8 - "• 12 - "• (LXX) 18 - 26 , 

II 28 , I2 1 - 4 , 13 11 . 
dfj.apTU)\6i, 7 26 , 1 2 s . 
&(*\4u, 2 3 , 8 9 (LXX). 

dfie/MITTOS, 8 7 . 

f d/ueratfe-ros, 6 17 * 18 . 

<w(?), I3 21 - 25 - 
* d/iijrwp, 7 3 - 
d^axros, 7 M (Christ), 13 4 (Chris- 

■ 6./J./J.0S, II 12 . 

&fxw/j.os, 9 14 . 

dv, i 13 (LXX), 4 8 , 8 4 - 7 , io 2 , 11 15 . 

dva7Kaios, 8 3 . 

dvdyKt), 7 12 - 27 , 9 16 - 23 . 

d^w, 13 20 . 

: dj'a5^x°M ( "j II 17 . 
: dvafleajp^uj, 13 7 . 

dvaipiw, IO 9 . 
h d^a/caiJ'/fw, 6 6 . 

dva/cd^TTTw, II 15 . 
' dvaXo-yifo/xat, I2 3 . 

avafxifj-vrjcrKU, IO 32 . 

d«'d/iJ'r;j p ts, IO 3 . 

dvapldfj-riTOS, II 12 . 

dydorcKm, 6 2 , II 38 . 

avaaTavp6o}, 6 6 . 

dva<TTpt<, IO 33 , 1 3". 

dvaarpocp^i, 13 7 . 





dvarAXw, 7 14 . 
dva<p£pu, 7 s7 (0wrfas), 9 s8 {ap.ap- 
rlas), 13 15 (flucr/ai/). 

d^x w > J3 22 - 

fodpuros, 2 8 (LXX), 5 1 , 6 16 , 7 8 - 28 , 

> 8 2 , 9» 1 3 s (LXX). 

dvirifii, 13 8 . 

dviffTTj/xi, 7 U - 18 (intrans.). 

dvofxia, I 9 (?), 8 12 , IO 17 . 

dvopdbu, I2 12 . 

avraycovt^o/jiai, 12 4 . 

dvTairo5L5u}fj.i, io 30 . 

dwf, I2 2 - 16 . 

dvTiKadi(jTr)fu, I2 4 . 

diriXovfa, 6 16 , 7 7 . 12*. 

dvTirviros, 9 24 [P]. 

dvi)7T(5raKTos, 2 8 [T]. 
• dvw, I2 18 . 
! dvJrrepov, io 8 . 

d^a;0eXi7s, 7 1S [T]. 

d£tos, II 38 . 

d£i<5u>, 3 s , io 29 . 

ddparoj, II 27 [Paul], 
■ d7ra77^XXw, 2 12 . 
: diraXXcurcrw, 2 15 . 

fiTraf, 6\ 9 7 - *• »• M 
(LXX) 27 . 

dirapdfiaTos, 7 24 . 

dirdrT?, 3 1S . 

dirdrajp, J 3 . 
' dirauyaff/jLa, I s . 

direldeia, 4 6 - u [Paul]. 

direidiu), 3 18 , II 31 . 
' direipos, 5 13 . 

direKd^xo/J-ai, 9 s8 . 

diriffTio, 3 12, 19 . 

d7r<5, 3", 4 3 - 410 , 

? 1. 2. 13. 26 > gl^ , 
,12. IS. 34 ,,15. 25 





5 7 - 8 . 

,14, M> 


6 1 - 7 , 


Il'*» , " ) 12' 

d7ro,SdXXa>, IO 38 . 

diropXtiro], II 26 . 
I diroypd<pu}, 1 2 s3 . 

a7ro5e»caT6w, 7 8 (?). 

d7ro5i5w^i, I2 n,ls , 13 17 . 

dirodoictfidfa, I2 17 . 

iiroOvncTKU, 7 8 , 9 27 , IO 28 , Il4.13.21.37 

diroKadiaTT]}j.i, 13 19 . 

drtfcet/cat, 9 s7 . 

dirAXaiwis, n 26 [T]. 

dn-oXeiVw (dTroXetVercu), 4 6 ' 9 , IO 26 . 
• dirdWv/xi, I 11 . 

d7roXi'>rpuwtj, 9 18 , 1 1 38 . 

d7roXi/a;, 13 23 . 

a7rocrrAXw, I 14 . 

dw6<TTo\o$, 3 1 (Christ). 

diro<rrp^0w, 12 25 . 

dTrortdrifu, I2 1 . 

dirtiXeia, IO 39 . 

dpa, 4 9 , I2 8 . 

dpirfw, 13 8 . 

dpfios, 4 12 . 

dpviofxai., II 24 . 

apirayri, IO 34 . 

dpros, 9 2 . 

d/>x»?. I 10 («"■' dpxds, LXX), 2», 
3 14 , 5 12 , 6«, 7 3 - 

;ipxnv&*, 2 10 , 12 2 . 

dpxtcp«5j, 2 17 , 3 1 , 4 14 - 18 , 5 1 - 8 - 10 , 

6 » 7 26.27.28 > gi. 3 ( gl. U. & I£)1 l 
_ (*.».£), I 3 ». 

; dffdXeuroj, I2 28 

iffOivem, 4 18 , 5 2 , 7 s8 , 11 
aadei>T)s, 7 18 . 




affTrafafiai, II 13 , 13 24 . 
fj dtrrelos, 1 1 23 . 

J &(TTpOV, II 12 . 

d<r0aX?js, 6 19 . 

atfrd, 2 10 , 9 s3 . 

aun}, 4 6 , 6 7 , 7 11 " 18 , 9 s , II 4 - ", 
I2 11 - 17 . 

ai/T(5s (aura, ai/rots, airroD, avruj, 
aiiTwv), (LXX), 
2 6 - (LXX) 7 - (LXX) 11 , 3 2 - 3 - 10 
(LXX), 4 6 - 8 , 5 5 - 7 , 8 8 - 9 - (LXX) 10 , 

gS3 I0 1(> j j 5. 6. 11. 16. 19 j 2 5. 

(LXX) 10 -' 17 , i 3 3 -'-s.n 
a^ris, i*- (LXX) 12 , 2 14 - 18 , 4 10 , 5", 
IO 12 , 13 s - 8 : airrol, I 11 (LXX), 
3 10 (LXX), 8 9 -(LXX) 10 (LXX), 
13 s - 17 : avrdv, 2 6 - (LXX) 7 
(LXX), 3 2 - 3 , 5 8 - 7 , 7 1 - 21 - 24 , 

9 24. 26.2 8) U 5. 6. 19 5 j 318 . al ) r0! } s , 
I 4 - 12 (LXX), 2 11 , 4 8 , 8 9 -(LXX) 
10 (LXX), io ,6 (LXX), 11 16 : 
ai/rd, 9 23 : auras, IO 11 , II 13 : 
avr-f), II 11 ; avTTjv, 4 6 , 5 11 , IO 1 , 
12 17 : avTrjs, 6 7 , 7 18 , 9 5 , II 4 - 9 , 
I2 n : airov, I 3 , 2«-(LXX) 8 
(LXX), 3 2 - (LXX) 5 - «• 7 - (LXX) 
18 (LXX), 4 1 - 7 -(LXX) 10 - 13 , 6 10 , 
7 M , io 13 (LXX), ii 4 - 5 , I2 5 - (LXX) 
w I3 i3. ij.21. a ^rw I /(2 10 , 7 6 - 6 - 25 , 

jj16. 28. 35 . LXX = 8 9- 10 - U " 12 

io 16 - ») : ' clvt'v, I 5 - (LXX) « 
(LXX), 2 8 - 10 - 13 (LXX), 4", 5 9 , 
7 10 , io 3S (LXX), 12 2 : airoh, 6 16 , 
8 8 - 10 (LXX), II 16 , I2 10 - 19 : avry, 
7 11 : aira<s, IO 13 : avro, 9 19 . 
atpaiplo), IO 4 . 

* dcpavTjS, 4 13 . 

* &<pav«r/j.6s, 8 13 . 
&<peffis, 9 22 , IO 18 . 
aiplrj/ii, 2 8 , 6 1 . 
a<pi\&pyvpos, 13 8 [T]. 
a(pl<TT7)n<., 3 12 . 

* dcpofioidu), 7 s . 
acpop&oo, I2 2 [Paul]. 

«XP', 4 12 , 6 11 , 3 13 («XP« o5). 

/3a7rri<j>i6s, 6 2 , 9 10 . 

* Bapd*, 11 32 . 

paurikela, I 8 (LXX), II 33 , I2 28 . 
PaaiXeis, 7 1 - 2 (LXX), 1 1 23 - 27 . 
/3<f/3aios, 2 2 , 3 6 - 14 , 6 19 , 9 17 . 
p(j3ai6u, 2 s , 13 9 . 
/3f/3a/a«rts, 6 1B [Paul]. 
/3<?/3tjXos, I2 16 [T]. 
t/3t/SMo», 9 19 , io 7 (LXX). 
{$\a<TTdvw, 9 4 . 
/3X<?™, 2 9 , 3 12 - 19 , IO 28 , II 1 - 87 , I2 25 . 

£/3oi$0fia, 4 19 . 
/Sotj^w, 2 18 . 

'ipo-ndds, if. 

't)3o\/j( j. »./.), 12 20 . 
* j3oT&vri, 6 7 . 
/3ovXt$, 6 17 . 
/So^Xo/xai, 6 17 . 
/3pa X iJs, 2 7 -(LXX) 19 , 
^pw/xa, 9 10 , i 3 ». 
fipGxu', 12 16 . 



7 dXa, 5 12 - 13 . 
7d/xoj, 13 4 . 
7ap (90 times). 

* Tedeuv, 1 1 32 , 
t yevea, 3 10 . 

* yevea'Koyew, J 6 . 

yevv&w, I s (LXX), 5" (LXX), 

Hl2(?). 23 # 

•yetfw, 2 9 , 6 4- 5 . 

* yewpyiu, 6 7 . 

77), i 10 (LXX), 6 7 , 8 4 - 9 (LXX), 

j j 9. 13. 29. M I2 25.26( LXX ). 

yrjp&iTKW, 8 13 . 

ylvo/xai (30 times). 

7iMio7cw, 3 10 (LXX), 8" (LXX), 
io 34 , 13 23 . 
*t yv6<pos, 12 18 . 
+ 76™, 12 12 . 
f 7pd(pw, IO 7 . 

yvuv&fa, 5 14 , I2 U . 

yvfivds, 4 13 . 

7W7J, II 35 . 

5d/cpi>, 5 7 , I2 17 . 

* Sd/xaXis, 9 13 . 
Aaw/5, 4 7 , II 82 . 
5<? (67 times). 
8£r]ais, 5 7 . 

5el, 2 1 , 9 26 , II 6 . 
t BeiKvvto, 8 8 . 

* SeKdxTj, 7 2 - 4 - 8 - 9 . 

* SeKardw, 7 6 - 9 . 

Be£i6t (iK SeZiQv), I 13 (LXX), (<?i 
deSif), l 3 , 8 1 , io 12 , I2 2 . 

* Mos [s.v./.) t 12 28 . 

* dipfia, II 37 . 
Siafiios, IO 34 , 13 s . 
5eo>6s, II 36 . 
SetVepos, 8 7 , g 3 - 7 - 28 , IO*. 

5^x°Mtt'j ii 31 - 

STjXiw, 9 8 , 12 27 (of the Spirit [P]). 

* 57}/j.iovpy6s, II 10 . 

* Srjwov, 2 16 . 

5td, with accusative (17 times). 

with genitive (38 times). 
diaPalvw, II 29 



8i&po\os, 2 U . 

diativKV, 7 22 , 8 6 - 8 - 10 (LXX),9 4 - IS - 16 - 
17 - 20 (LXX), io 16 --'', I2- 4 , 13 20 . 

oiaKovtw, 6 ,u . 

StaKovta, 1 14 . 

5i6.Kpi.ais, 5 14 [Paul]. 

Sia\4yo/, I2 5 . 

Sta/xaprvpopLai, 2 6 . 
t Sia/Litvo}, I 11 . 
t didvoia, 8 10 , io 16 . 

SiaarfKXw, I2 20 . 
" Sidrayfia, II 23 . 

;8»otW w », 8 I0 (LXX), g 16 - 17 , io 16 

dtd<popos, I 4 , S 6 , 9 10 [Paul]. 

5i8d<rKa\os, 5 12 - 

StSdaKw, 5 12 , 8 1J (LXX). 

5t5ax^, 6 2 , 13 9 . 

MSw/u, 2 ,3 (LXX), 7 4 , 8 10 (LXX), 
io 16 (LXX). 

8i£pxo/J.cLi, 4 14 . 

SiTf/iofiai, 11 32 . 

* dirjveKrjS, 7 s , IO K 12-14 . 

* SuKveofiai, 4 12 . 

Sfeotos, io 38 (LXX), 11 4 . 12 23 . 
Sucauxrfori, i 9 (LXX), 5 13 , 7 2 , u 7 - 83 , 

I2 n . 
SiKaiiL/jLara, g 1 - 10 . 


816, 3 7 - 10 , 6 1 , io 5 , ii 12 - 16 , 
I3 12 

,12. 28 

* oibpduxns, 9 10 . 
8i6ti, ii 8 - 28 . 
8lcrTO/j.os, 4 12 . 
8ld)KW, I2 14 . 

Sok^w, 4 1 , io 29 , I2 10 - 11 . 
*t doKi/Aacrta, 3". 

Sc5£a, i 3 , 2 7 -(LXX) 9 - 10 , 3 s , 9 5 , 

13 21 . 
5o£dfw, 5 B . 
SotAeia, 2 15 [Paul]. 
S^cu, 2 18 , 3 13 , 4 1B , s 2 - \ f\ 9 9 , 

io 1 - n . 
dtva/us, i 3 , 2 4 , 6 s , 7 16 , II 11 - 34 . 
5vi<a/tt<5w, 1 1 34 [Paul]. 
Swards, II 19 . 
5(yo, 6 18 , io 28 . 

* Svffep/nrivevTos, 5 11 . 
Swped, 6*. 

SQpou (8wpa), s\ 8 3 - 4 , g 9 , n 4 . 

idv, f- 7 - (LXX) 15 (LXX), 4 7 
(LXX), io 38 (LXX), 13 23 . 

* idvirep, 3 14 , 6 3 . 

eavTov, 3 13 , 5 3 - 4 - 5 , 6«- 18 , 7 27 , 

9 7 - 14 - 25 , io 25 - 34 , I2 3]6 . 
^(SSo/xos, 4 4 . 

^rytTw, 7 19 , io 24 . 

* £771/05, 7 22 . 
<?77i>s, 6 8 , 8 13 . 
eyelpw, 1 1 ,9 . 

* tyKaivlfa, 9 18 , io 20 . 
iyKaraXeiiru), IO 25 , 1 3* (LXX). 

t<?7w, I 6 , 2 13 , 5 5 , io 3 ", 12 26 . 
e'tfos, io 28 . 

el, 2 2 , 3 1, (LXX), 4 3 - 5 -(I-XX) 8 , 
6 14 (LXX), 7»-« 8 4 -\ 9 13 , 11". 
e/ /toi, 6 9 . 
ei yuij, 3 18 . 
t el (ji-fiv, 6 14 . 
el ov, I2 28 . 

tWor, 3 9 (LXX), ii 8 -i3.28 > 
etidip, io 1 . 
e//*{, I2 2l (LXX). 
t el, I 8 - 12 , 5 8 . 
icriv (18 times). 
fVyUeV, 3 6 , 4 2 , i 10 - 39 . 
icxri, 12 8 . 

fWc, i 10 - (LXX) 14 , 7 2 »- 23 , 
11 13 . 
eTvai, 5 12 , II 4 , 12 11 . 
elivov, I 8 , 3 13 (LXX), 7 9 , io 7 - 

(LXX) 30 , 12 21 . 
elprjKev, I 13 , 4 3 - 4 , io 9 - IS , 13 s . 
elprivri, J 2 , II s1 , I2 14 , 13 20 . 
elprjvtKds, I2 n . 
et's (75 times). 




eh, 2 11 , io 12 - 14 , 11 
eicd^yw, I 6 . 
el<Ta.Ko6u>, 5 7 . 
J efoei/xi, 9 6 . 
eMpxofuu, 3 11 ' (LXX) 13 - 19 , 4'- 3 - 
(LXX) 5 - (LXX) «-io. n 6 19 - 20 , 

gl2. 24. 25 ) IQ 5^ 

etcroSos, io 19 . 

elff<pipu, 13 11 . 

elra, I2 9 . 

«V (22 times). 

eVcacrroj, 3 13 , 6", 8 ai (LXX), 11". 

* iKfialvu, 1 1 1B . 
ttcfiacns, 13 7 [Paul]. 
e'Kde'xofiai, io 13 , II 10 . 

t iKdiKfjais, IO 30 . 

* indoxv, IO 27 . 
eW, 7 8 . 

Arefroj, 4 2 - « 6 7 , 8 7 - 10 (LXX), io 16 , 

II 16 , 12 25 . 
iKft-iu), II 6 , 12 17 . 
iKkkvtrla, 2 12 (LXX), 12 23 . 

* iKKavddvoi, 12 8 . 
f iK.\elirw, I 12 . 

<!/cXi5w, 12 3 , I2 5 (LXX). 
eKovirlws, io 26 [P]. 
itcrpdirw, I2 13 [T]. 
iK<p4pd>, 6 8 . 





£K<pevyw, 2 3 , I2 29 . 
f ?K<popos, I2 21 . 
t tfXcuop, I 9 . 

^Xdffirwi', 7 7 . 
t iXtyXU, I2 5 . 
t iXarrbw, 2 7 - 9 . 

* Ae7X0S, II 1 . 
t A^yxw, I2 5 . 

4\er)fJ.ojv, 2 17 . 

r\eos, 4 16 . 
teMnrw, I 12 (*.»./.). 

<?\irtfw, II 1 . 

AttIs, 3 6 , 6»- 18 , 7 19 . 
t ippiva, 8 9 . 

ifiol, IO 30 , 13 8 . 

* i/j.iraiyfj.6s, II 36 . 
t/jLiriirTw, IO 31 . 
ifx<pa.v'i^u, 9 21 , II 14 . 
^v (65 times). 
4vdeiKvu/xi, 6 10 - " [Paul]. 
^5tKos, 2 2 [Paul]. 
ivtpyns, 4 1 '- 2 . 
£vdvp.T)<jis, 4 12 . 
^iavr<55, 9 7 - 25 , IO 1, 3 . 
ivla-rrifii, 9 9 [Paul]. 
£*«<oia, 4 12 [P]. 

t ivax^w, I2 15 . 
^voxos, 2 15 . 

^rAXw, 9 20 (LXX), II 22 . 
^i-toXi), 7 6 - 16 - ls , 9 19 . 
ivrpiizu}, I2 9 . 
ft ivrpofj.os, I2 21 . 
&Tt/7xdi'W, 7 25 - 

* ivvfrpltw, IO 29 . 
ivwirioit, 4 13 , 13 21 . 

'Ej^x. I! 6 - 
t ^d7w, 8 9 . 
itipxo/uu, 3 1H , 7 s , " 8 » I3 13 

* **«, 5 14 . 
^o5os, II 22 . 
i\ovala, 13 10 . 

iirayyeUa, 4 l , 6 12 - 15 - ,7 , f, „ 

10 S6 j j 9. 13. 17. 33. 39_ 

ftrayyAXw, 6 13 , io 23 , n u , 12 26 . 
^TraifrxwoA'ai, 2", II 16 . 
iird, 5 2 - 11 , 6 13 , 9 17 - 26 , 10 2 , 11": 
iirel oOv, 2 14 , 4*. 

* tireuraywyr}, J 19 . 
Irreira, 7 2 - 27 . 

ftrf: accus. 2 7 (LXX), 3', 6 1 , 7 13 , 
8 8 - 10 (LXX), io 18 -(LXX) 21 , 





dat. 2 13 (LXX), 8 16 , 9 10 - 1B 
"• 26 , io- 8 (LXX), u 4 - 38 . 

genit. i 2 , 6 7 , 7 n ,8 4 - lu (LXX), 
11 13 . 12"" 


iwlyvutrtt, IO 26 . 
t £inypd<pu>, 8 10 , IO 18 . 
iTnbeiKvvpn, 6' 7 . 
iirifyriw, II 14 , 13 14 . 
£Tri8e<ris, 6 2 . 
iiridvuiw, 6". 
iiriKaktu, II 16 . 
iiriKei/xai, 9 10 . 
irikafip&ra, 2 16 , 8 9 (LXX). 
£iri\ai>dai>, 6 10 , 13 s - 16 . 

* twiXelTTW, II 32 . 

f tlriCrK^TTTO/Mll, 2 8 . 

* iiriaKMctu, I2 15 [P?]. 
evtiTTafiai, 1 1 8 . 

ZiirtcTTiWus, 13 22 . 
^7Ti<7i>»'a.7W777, IO 25 [Paul]. 
iwireXiu,, 8', 9 8 . 
eiriTptrrti), 6 3 . 
^7ririryxdvuj, 6 15 , II 33 . 

* *7ros, 7 a . 

eVoi'pd«'tos, 3 1 , 6 4 , 8 5 , 9 23 . II 16 , 

I2 22 . 
en-rd, II 30 . 
£pya{o/, II 33 . 
#/>7o^6 10 (i3 21 ): ? m ,i w (LXX), 

2 7 (LXX), 3 9 (LXX), 4 3 - 4 - 

(LXX) 10 , 6 1 , 9 14 . 
£pr} f 1 1 38 . 
t? PW oi,3 8 (LXX)". 

£pfj.rjv£vu, 7 2 . 
%ipvdpbs, II 29 . 

tpxofuu, 6 7 , ii 8 , 13' 23 (8 8 , 10 37 

<?<r0iw, 10 27 , 13 10 . 
t ftro/ttu, I s , 2 13 , 8 10 - 12 [3 12 ]. 

IcrXaTOj, I 2 . 
J ^crwrepos (t6 icrdiTepov), 6 19 . 

2repos, 5«, 7»-«-", II 38 . 

ft-t, 7 10 - "• 1S , 8" (LXX), 9 8 , io 2 ' 17 ' 
37 (LXX), ii 4 - 32 - 38 , i2 26 -(LXX) 
27 (LXX). 

iroifj-afa, II 16 . 
tfros, I 12 , 3 10 - 17 . 

e&ayyeXL^ecrdai, 4 2- 8 . 

* evapeurew, 1 1 5 - (LXX) 8 , 13 16 . 
evapeaTos, 13 21 [Paul]. 

* evapioTus, I2 28 . 
t evSoKtu, IO 8 - 8 - 38 . 
X etderos, 6 7 . 

*f evdvrrjs, I 8 . 

eC/ccupos, 4 18 . 
' e*\d/3eia, 5 7 , 12 28 . 
J evXafitofiai, 1 1 7 . 

edXff^w, 6 14 (LXX), 7 1 - «• 7 , n 20 --' 1 . 

ey\o7^a, 6 7 , I2 17 . 

* einrepLcTTaTOS, I2 1 . 



* einroita, 13 16 . 

evplffKu, 4 16 , 9 12 (evpa/xevos), II 5 
(LXX), 12 17 . 

if&iraS, 7", 9 12 , I0 10 - 

Wis, I3 8 - 
t^X^P 6s » llS > iq13 - 

^X w (38 times). 
t*«f, i ls , 8", io 13 . 

ttf)Xos, io 27 . 
fr>, 2 15 , 3 12 . 4 12 , T 8 - 26 , 9 14 - 17 , 

10 20.31.38 (L XX), I2 9 - ffl . 

frjTtw, 8 7 . 

t f<50os, I2 18 . 

f"i 7 3 - 16 - 

&0P, I3 U . 

ff, 2«(LXX), IO 28 , II 25 , I2 16 . 
*Ho/«oi, IO 29 , II 11 - « l 3 7 - 17 - 24 . 
ftflCU), IO 7-9,37 . 

ijXiKia, II 11 . 
Tj/ttecs (31 times). 

Wpa, I 2 , 3»- (LXX) 13 , 4 4 -(LXX) 
7. 8> 5 7 f ? 3. 27^ 8 8 - 9 - 10 (LXX), 

io'^MLXX) 25 - 33 , 11 30 , I2 1U . 
^(tVo*), 2 15 , 7 10 ' 11 , 8 4 - 7 , II 38 , 12 21 . 
'H<raO, II 20 , I2 16 [Paul]. 
tfaos, I2 19 . 

0dXa(r<ra, II 12 - (LXX) 29 . 

edvaros, 2 9 - 14 - 15 , 5 7 , 7 23 , 9 16 - 18 » " B - 
dapptu, 1 3 6 [Paul]. 

* dear pi fa, IO 33 . 

WXiyta, io 7 - (LXX) 9 - (LXX) 10 - S6 ) 

I3 21 - 

* 0fK V <TlS, 2*. 

Oikw, io 5 - (LXX) 8 (LXX), 12 17 , 

13 18 . 
deixtXios, 6 1 , II 10 . 
t0e/xeXi6u>, I 10 . 

debs (66 times). 
*t depdirwv, 3 5 . 
dewpiu, 7 4 . 
t d-qpiov, 1 2 20 . 
d-qcravpSs, II 26 . 

0i77dew, n 28 . 12 s0 (LXX) [Paul]. 
0\t/3w, II 37 . 
0Xty«, IO 33 . 

0p<Ws, i 8 (LXX), 4 16 , 8 1 , 12 2 . 
dvydrrip, II 24 . 
•ffluAXa, 12 18 . 
*f dvfj.ia.T7]piov, 9 4 . 
0u/a6s, II 27 . 

Bwrla, S\ 7", 8 3 , 9 9 - 23 - 26 , IO 1 - 5 - 
(LXX) 8 - (LXX) "• 12 - 26 , II 4 , 

15. 16 


dvciacrrypiov, 7 13 , 13 10 . 

IcikwP, I !••*•». 
Ido/xat, I2 13 . 
»«», 4 1 ", 7 s7 , 9' 2 , I3 12 - 
t tfoiJ, 2 13 , 8 8 , io 7 - 9 . 

* leparela, J 6 , 
'lepeixu, II 30 . 

lepers, 5 6 (LXX), 71. »• n. 14. is. 17. 

(LXX) 2 "- 21 - 23 , 8 4 , 9 6 , IO 11 -". 

'Iepov<ra\-q/j., 12 22 . 
*lepucrtvri, 7 1 '- 12 - 24 . 
*'Ie<t>e&e, II 32 . 
*lT;<roOs, 2 9 , 3 1 , 4 14 , 6 20 , 7 M , IO 10 
{'It)<toG XpKTToD), io 19 , I2 2 - 24 , 13 8 
('It/o-oDj X/>wt4s), 13 1 " ^ 2l 
('Itjo-oO XptcrroO), = Joshua, 4 8 . 

* iKerrjpla, 5 7 . 

J tXdcrico/utt, 2 17 . 

IXaarripiov, g 5 [Paul]. 
t IXews, 8 12 . 
HtxdTtov, i"< 12 '). 

1W, 2 14 - 17 , 4 16 , 5', 6 18 , g 25 , io 9 - 3fi , 

II 35 1 2 s7 IT 1 "' 17 " 19 > 

fra mV, 3 U , 4" 6 12 , n 28 - 40 , 12 s - 13 . 
'IoWas, 7 14 , 8 8 (LXX). 
'IvadK, 1 1 9 - 17 - 18 - (LXX) 20 . 
lar-qm, IO 9 - n . 
Icrxvpfc, 5 7 . 6' 8 , II 34 . 
Icrxvu, 9 17 . 
J'lraXfo, 13 24 . 
'Iaxnfa, II 21 - 22 . 

t /ca7w, 8 9 . 
Kaddrrep, 4 2 . 
Kadaplfa, 9 14 - "■ B , io 2 . 
Kadapi<r/ji6s, I 3 . 
Kadap6s, IO 22 . 

* KadapoTrjs, 9 13 . 
+ Kad-qfiat, 1 13 . 
tmxfltfw, i 3 , 8\ io 12 , 12 2 . 

KaOUmi/u, 2 7 (LXX?), 5 1 , 7 18 , 8 3 . 

jtaMi, 3 7 , 4 3 - 7 , 5 3 - 6 , 8 5 , io 25 , 11 12 . 

Kadwairep, 5 4 . 

Kaf (54 times). 

KdiV, 11 4 . 

Kau>6t, (8tatfr)Kij), 8 8 -(LXX) 13 , 9 15 . 

Kalirep, 5 8 , 7 5 , I2 17 . 

Kaipds, 9 9 - 10 , II 11 - 19 . 
t Kairoi, 4 3 . 
t /cafw, I2 18 . 

KaKelvos, 4 2 . 

/ca/cds, 5 14 - 

* KaKOvxtu, II 37 , 13 s . 

<caX<?a>, 2 U , 3 13 , 5 4 , 9 15 , II 8 - 18 

Ka\6s, 5 14 , 6 s , IO 24 , I3 9 - 18 . 
(caXcSs, 13 18 . 
Kd/nvo), I2 3 . 



+ K&.V, I2 20 . 

KapSla, f- (LXX) 10 - (LXX) 12 - 16 , 
4 7 -(LXX) 12 , 8 10 (LXX), io 16 - 
(LXX) 22 , i 3 ». 

Kapirds, I2 11 , 13 15 (LXX). 

* Kaprepiw, 1 1 27 . 

Kard : genit. 6 13 - 16 ; accus. I 10 

(LXX), 2 4 - 17 , 3 3 - 8 -(LXX)> 3 , 4 15 , 
5«- (LXX) 10 , 6 20 (LXX), f- "• 16 - 
16 - 17 - (LXX) 20 - 22 - 27 , 8 4 - 5 - (LXX) 9 
(LXX), 9 B - 9 - 19 - 22 - 25 - 27 , io 1 - 3 - 8 - u , 
ii 7 - 13 , 12 10 . 

/cara/3dXXw, 6 1 . 

KCLTdpoXri, 4 3 , 9 26 , II 11 . 

* Karayuivi^ofiai, II 33 . 

* Ka.ra8r]\os, 7 16 . 
/cara/caico, 13 11 . 
KaraKplvu), 1 1 7 . 
KaraXef7rw, 4 1 , II 27 . 
KCTavoXicrKW, I2 29 . 
/caraco^w, 3 1 , IO 24 . 
KaTa7raWw, IO 29 . 
KaTcurawis, 3 11, 18 , 4 1 
Karairaino, 4 4- (LXX) 8, 



1. 3. 5. 10. n 
io . 

Karawiraana, 6 19 , 9 3 , IO 20 . 

Karatrlvu), 1 1 29 . 

Kardpa, 6 8 . 

Karapytoj, 2 14 . 

Karaprifa, io 5 (LXX), II 3 , I3 : 


Karacr/cewifw, 3 s - 4 
KaTacrKidjtd, 9 s . 

KaTd<TK07rOS, II 31 . 
Karate iryw, 6 18 . 
Kara(f>popio), 12 2 

-,2. 6 






Ka-rixu, 3 6 ' 14 » 

KaroiKioi, II 9 . 
* /cautris, 6 8 . 

^ai'XT/^a, 3 6 [Paul]. 
J xe<pa\aiov, 8 1 . 
*tKe0aXis, IO 7 . 

kijSutSs, 9 4 , II 7 . 

K\7]p0V0fxtd), i 4 - 14 , 6 12 , 

KXrjpovo/xla, 9 15 , II 8 . 

K\t]pov6/noi, I 2 (of Christ), 6 17 , II 7 . 

kXt)™, 3 1 . 

k\Ivu, ii 34 . 

/cotv^s, io 29 . 

KOLfdu, 9 13 . 

Koivuvtu (gen.), 2 14 . 
Koivuivla, 1 3 16 . 
koi»'wi'6s, io 33 . 
Kolrq, 13 4 . 
a^k/cicos, 9 19 . 
KO^fw, IO 38 , u«. i».s» t 

"t K01T7), f. 

Koapun6s, 9 1 [T]. 

<c6ff/*os, 4 3 , 9 26 , io 6 , ii 7 - 38 . 


Kpariw, 4 14 , 6 18 . 

tepdros, 2 14 . 

Kpavyrj, 5 7 . 

KpdTTWP, I 4 , 6 9 , 7 7 - 19 - M , L , 

IO 34 , iiu-ss.^ I2 m 
Kpijua, 6 2 . 

/cp^w, io 30 (LXX), 13 4 . 
K/jicris, 9 s7 , io 27 . 
Kpirris (God), 1 2 s3 . 
* KpiTiicds, 4 12 . 

t Kp67TTW, I I 23 . 

KTi<m, 4 13 , 9 11 . 

kvk\6u, ii 30 . 

(ci^oj, i 10 (LXX), 2 13 , 7 14 - 21 (LXX), 
8 2 - 8 - (LXX) 9 - (LXX) ,0 - (LXX) " 
(LXX), io 16 - 30 (LXX), I2 6 - B - 
(LXX) 14 , 13 s - (LXX) 20 . 
*f /ccDXoi', 3 17 . 

KoiXvco, 7 s *! 

XaX^a,, I 1 - 2 , 2 2 - 8 - 6 , 3 6 , 4 8 , S 5 » 6 9 , 

7 14 , 9 19 

1 1 

18 ( I2 24.26 ) I3 7, 

,16 -1. J -3. s. y 
4 1 3 » / > 

8. 11. 29. 85. 36 

Xa/x^dvui, 2 2- 3 

9 15 - 19 , IO 26 , II 

\avddvd), 13 2 . 

Xa«5 s , 2 17 , 4 9 , 5 3 ,7 5,11 - 27 ,8 1( >(LXX), 
9 7 - 19 , io 30 (LXX), ii 25 , 13 12 . 

\arpela, g 1 - 6 . 

Xar/jetfw, 8 B , 9 9 - 14 , IO 2 , I2 28 , 13 10 . 

Xiyu, I 6 - 7 , 2 s - 12 , 3 7 - 15 , 4 7 , 5 8 - 11 , 
6 u 7 n. 13. 2i ( gi. 8. (LXX) 9 -( LXX) 
10 - (LXX) 11 - (LXX) 13 , 9 2- 3 -e-20 j 

IO S. 8. 16 ) „H.24.32 ) I2 26 ( ^6. 

XetToupytu), io 11 . 
X«roup7/a, 8 6 , 9 21 . 

* X«Toi'p7£/c(5y, I 14 . 
XetToi-p76s, I 7 (LXX), 8 2 [Paul]. 
Aeirf, 7 5 - 9 . 

* AewViKis, 7". 
Xiuiv, II 33 . 
Xifldfw, II 87 . 

t Xt0Oj3oX<?w, I2 20 . 
Xoyifrofiai, II 19 . 
X^toy (plur. ), 5 12 

X6705, 2 2 , 4 

2. 12. 13 

-11. 18 


19 j V7. 17. 22 

6 1 , 7 J 

\0nr6s (rb \0ur6v), IO 13 . 
\ovu>, IO 22 . 

\V1T7], 12 11 . 

J Xvrpuxris, 9 12 . 
XvxvLa,, 9 2 . 

IxaKpodvixiw, 6 IB . 
/xaKpodv/j-ta, 6 12 . 
yudXW, 9 14 , io 25 , I2 9 - 13 - 26 . 
fiavOdvu), 5 8 . 
/u.dci'a, 9 4 . 



paprvptu, 7 8 - ", I0 1S , II 2 -*- 5 - 39 . 
fxaprvpiov, 3 8 . 
fidprvs, IO M (LXX), I2 1 . 
f fj.a<rTiy6u), I2 6 . 

/XCLVTlt, II 36 . 

fxdx^pa, 4 12 , II 84 - 87 - 

/xeYaXwcriVT;, I 3 , 8 1 . 

M*y«, 4 14 , 8 11 (LXX), io 21 - 38 , n 24 , 

I3 2 °- 
ptlfar, 6 13 - 19 , 9", II 26 . 
^\X«, I 14 , 2 s , 6 5 , 8 s , 9", io 1 - 27 , 



8.20 J,! 

Ilckx&tet, 5 6 - 10 , 6 20 , 7 U 10 - 1K 1B - "• 

aiaibofiai., 8 8 [Paul]. 

M ^, 1 7 , 3 5 > r 2 - 5 - 8 - 18 - 20 - 23 . 9 6 - 23 , 

IO 11 - 33 , II 15 , I2 9 - 10 ' 11 . 

fdv olv, 7 11 , S 4 , 9 1 . 

tfvu, 7 3 - 24 , 10 s4 , 1 2 s7 , I3 1 - 14 . 

/tepffw, 7 2 . 

* fj.epio-fj.6s, 2 4 , 4 12 . 
M<>s, 9 5 . 

* fieaire <bw, 6 17 . 

/ueo-irTjs, 8 6 , 9 1B , i2»[Paul]. 
t/x&ros, 2 12 . 
M erd: genit. 4 16 , 5 7 , 7 21 , 9' 9 , i° 22 - ! 

II 1 


14. 17. 

j ,17. 2i. 25_ 

accus. 4 7 - 8 , 7 s8 , 8 1 ' (LXX), 

9 3.27 ( , 15. 16. 26 # 

* fierdOeffis, 7 12 , II 8 , 12 27 . 
fjL€Ta\a/x^dvo}, 6 7 , I2 10 . 

f /jLera/xiXofiai., J 21 , 
fierdvoia, 6 1,6 , I2 17 . 
peTarldrifu, 7 12 , II 6 . 

* fiertireiTa, I2 17 . 

/ter^xw. 2 14 , 5 13 . 7 13 - 
:^ro X os, i» (LXX), 3'. » 6 4 , I2 8 . 

* (leTpioTradto), 5 2 . 

^XP', 3 6 - 14 > 9 1U , 12 4 . 
/utj (28 times). 
f fj-ySe, 12 15 . 
fn)dds, IO 2 . 

* fj.-q§tirw, 1 1 7 . 

* fj,rj\wTi), II 37 . 

MijTrore, 2 1 , 3 12 , 4 1 , 9 17 .